When the dirty flag is set, cgroup_set_values_recursive()
was erroneously failing the recursive setting of values.
There were two problems in the unit test that caused this to
be missed:
1. The dirty flag wasn't being set
2. If fgets() returned a NULL ptr, the contents of the
settings file weren't being checked
Reported-by: Github User bharani-viswas
Signed-off-by: Tom Hromatka <tom.hroma...@oracle.com>
---
gunit/009-cgroup_set_values_recursive.cpp | 11 ++++++++---
1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/gunit/009-cgroup_set_values_recursive.cpp
b/gunit/009-cgroup_set_values_recursive.cpp
index 07ce3d5d9883..7f4aaa0d7210 100644
--- a/gunit/009-cgroup_set_values_recursive.cpp
+++ b/gunit/009-cgroup_set_values_recursive.cpp
@@ -95,6 +95,7 @@ TEST_F(SetValuesRecursiveTest, SuccessfulSetValues)
char tmp_path[FILENAME_MAX], buf[4092];
struct cgroup_controller ctrlr = {0};
int ret, i;
+ char *val;
FILE *f;
ret = snprintf(ctrlr.name, FILENAME_MAX - 1, "cpu");
@@ -108,7 +109,10 @@ TEST_F(SetValuesRecursiveTest, SuccessfulSetValues)
strncpy(ctrlr.values[i]->name, NAMES[i], FILENAME_MAX);
strncpy(ctrlr.values[i]->value, VALUES[i],
CG_CONTROL_VALUE_MAX);
- ctrlr.values[i]->dirty = false;
+ if (i == 0)
+ ctrlr.values[i]->dirty = true;
+ else
+ ctrlr.values[i]->dirty = false;
ctrlr.index++;
}
@@ -124,8 +128,9 @@ TEST_F(SetValuesRecursiveTest, SuccessfulSetValues)
f = fopen(tmp_path, "r");
ASSERT_NE(f, nullptr);
- while (fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f))
- ASSERT_STREQ(buf, VALUES[i]);
+ val = fgets(buf, sizeof(buf), f);
+ ASSERT_NE(val, nullptr);
+ ASSERT_STREQ(buf, VALUES[i]);
fclose(f);
}
}
--
2.26.2
_______________________________________________
Libcg-devel mailing list
Libcg-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libcg-devel
