These don't really rely on any advanced file operations, and can run in
parallel.
This was a leftover from when test_incompat+test_compat were merged, and
test_compat should probably run after all file operations are thoroughly
tested.
Returning the actual on-disk file type is probably more useful for users
as this gives them more information.
I was originally concerned about collisions with future internal types,
LFS_TYPE_TRAVERSAL, etc, needed for internal opened-list tracking, but
it turns out we can avoid problems by starting internal types at 0x80,
since on-disk file types are only 7-bits.
Code changes:
code stack
before: 33710 2592
after: 33694 (-0.0%) 2592 (+0.0%)
This adds a couple things so our unknown file types don't just cause our
filesystem to fall over:
- lfsr_mount now prints a warning on any unknown file types found at
mount time. Since we're already iterating over all files to find
orphans, this is basically free.
- Added LFS_TYPE_UNKNOWN to represent files with an unknown/unsupported
type. This is now returned by lfsr_stat/lfsr_dir_read for files of any
unknow type.
- Added LFS_ERR_NOTSUP. This is now returned by functions that attempt
to modify a file of unknown type, and my have more use cases in the
future.
It's tempting to allow remove/rename on unknown file types, but since
we don't know what data structures these may be referencing, doing so
would likely leak storage. Or worse. Shrubs for example would just
explode if you only moved the metadata entry.
This also adds test_incompat_unknown to test these cases.
Code changes are minimal, though there are a number of extra conditions
to check for unknown file types. The lfsr_mount condition is
particularly fun as it should be completely optimized out when debug
statements are disabled:
code stack
before: 33670 2592
after: 33710 (+0.1%) 2592 (+0.0%)
Unlike the other test_compat tests, the test_incompat tests cover
specific corner cases and don't require any special linking. We probably
always want to run these, and keeping them merged with test_compat risks
the entire suite being omitted at some point.
The test_compat tests are a bit special and probably deserves a
dedicated test suite.
Christopher Haster