On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 15:25 +0400, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: > >>>> I will try to produce more feedback in the future :) > > > > Hi Pavel, > > > > Did you get a chance to generate more detailed feedback on the entire > > set of namespace test cases in LTP. >
Hi Veerendra, > I've looked over ipcns tests in (I hope) details. > > The thing I noticed, is that the ID isolation (sysvipc/shmnstest.c > file) is checked for shmem only - I'd check for all - sem and msg > as well. > > Besides, I'd test one more thing (with all the sorts of sysVipc): > Create two shmem segments with the same ID in different namespaces > and check that writing to memory in one namespace doesn't affect > such in the other. The same for semaphores - e.g. up-ing the sem in > on ns doesn't wake a task in the other one - and msg - queued message > cannot be picked up from the other namespace. > > The other thing, that is not tested is the ipcs utility - I expectd > it would be the first to get tested. To be absolutely sane - I'd even > test the /proc/sysvipc/ entries, since ipcs doesn't get the info from > them, but calls system calls instead. > > UTS ns is really *very* simple - I cannot even invent something interesting > to test - the current tests look OK from the first glance. When you have time, can you please look into Pavel´s comments to improve our NS test cases ? Pavel, Would you be able to give more comprehensive feedback on these tests ? Regards-- Subrata > > > Regards-- > > Subrata ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
