@@ -744,15 +744,20 @@ static noinline void check_xa_multi_store_adv_add(struct xarray *xa,
do {
xas_lock_irq(&xas);
-
xas_store(&xas, p);
- XA_BUG_ON(xa, xas_error(&xas));
- XA_BUG_ON(xa, xa_load(xa, index) != p);
-
xas_unlock_irq(&xas);
+ /*
+ * In our selftest case the only failure we can expect is for
+ * there not to be enough memory as we're not mimicking the
+ * entire page cache, so verify that's the only error we can run
+ * into here. The xas_nomem() which follows will ensure to fix
+ * that condition for us so to chug on on the loop.
+ */
+ XA_BUG_ON(xa, xas_error(&xas) && xas_error(&xas) != -ENOMEM);
} while (xas_nomem(&xas, GFP_KERNEL));
XA_BUG_ON(xa, xas_error(&xas));
+ XA_BUG_ON(xa, xa_load(xa, index) != p);
}
/* mimics page_cache_delete() */
While testing lib/test_xarray in userspace I've noticed we can fail with: make -C tools/testing/radix-tree ./tools/testing/radix-tree/xarray BUG at check_xa_multi_store_adv_add:749 xarray: 0x55905fb21a00x head 0x55905fa1d8e0x flags 0 marks 0 0 0 0: 0x55905fa1d8e0x xarray: ../../../lib/test_xarray.c:749: check_xa_multi_store_adv_add: Assertion `0' failed. Aborted We get a failure with a BUG_ON(), and that is because we actually can fail due to -ENOMEM, the check in xas_nomem() will fix this for us so it makes no sense to expect no failure inside the loop. So modify the check and since this is also useful for instructional purposes clarify the situation. The check for XA_BUG_ON(xa, xa_load(xa, index) != p) is already done at the end of the loop so just remove the bogus on inside the loop. With this we now pass the test in both kernel and userspace: In userspace: ./tools/testing/radix-tree/xarray XArray: 149092856 of 149092856 tests passed In kernel space: XArray: 148257077 of 148257077 tests passed Fixes: a60cc288a1a2 ("test_xarray: add tests for advanced multi-index use") Signed-off-by: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org> --- lib/test_xarray.c | 13 +++++++++---- 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)