Quoting Garrett Cooper (yaneg...@gmail.com):
> On Mar 20, 2009, at 9:19, "Serge E. Hallyn" <se...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>
>> (Against the March intermediate release)
>>
>> mqns support is expect in 2.6.30, not 2.6.29.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Serge Hallyn <se...@us.ibm.com>
>> ---
>> .../kernel/containers/mqns/check_mqns_enabled.c | 2 +-
>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/containers/mqns/check_mqns_enabled.c b/
>> testcases/kernel/containers/mqns/check_mqns_enabled.c
>> index a369921..169e8c9 100644
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/containers/mqns/check_mqns_enabled.c
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/containers/mqns/check_mqns_enabled.c
>> @@ -34,7 +34,7 @@ int main()
>> int pid;
>> mqd_t mqd;
>>
>> - if (tst_kvercmp(2,6,29) < 0) /* only in -mm so far actually
>> */
>> + if (tst_kvercmp(2,6,30) < 0) /* only in -mm so far actually
>> */
>> return 1;
>>
>> mq_unlink("/checkmqnsenabled");
>> --
>> 1.5.6.3
>
> Sorry if I contradict what I said earlier, but what if someone
> backported this patch to an earlier kernel version? What if someone
Then they can make the trivial change back (as I do to test with
-mm).
> didn't enable this support in their kernel with one of the supported
> versions?
checkmqnsenabled goes on to check for posix mq support and for
IPC namespaces support. If both of those are present, then the
support is there. If either is missing, then it is not.
The reason we need the version check is that on an older kernel,
posix mq support and IPC namespaces support can both be enabled
but the support (of course) for posix mq namespaces is not there.
> Is there a better way to check for this support and other
> version specific features (autoconf?)?
No, autoconf has nothing to do with it. The problem is that there's
really no way to check for the feature other than testing the
feature itself, which the testcases of course are doing. The goal
of this is just to not annoy users with spurious FAILs.
> I'm starting to see what Mike F.
> was trying to bring up about the futility of version checking like
> this...
Well we can just always run the tests, but ltp will lose a lot
of users (including me). Or, we can never automatically run the
tests and require they all be run by hand. That'd be fine with
me. There are some testcases like hackbench and growfiles and
some memtests that I'd rather not run automatically when I'm
just testing for functionality regressions and not stresstests.
But IMO the way it is now is a touch fragile (by necessity), but
ok. You simply can't programatically detect the difference
between an older kernel which doesn't support posix mq namespaces,
and a newer kernel where they are broken.
-serge
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Apps built with the Adobe(R) Flex(R) framework and Flex Builder(TM) are
powering Web 2.0 with engaging, cross-platform capabilities. Quickly and
easily build your RIAs with Flex Builder, the Eclipse(TM)based development
software that enables intelligent coding and step-through debugging.
Download the free 60 day trial. http://p.sf.net/sfu/www-adobe-com
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
