On Tue, 2008-11-18 at 01:15 +0100, Jiří Paleček wrote:Hello, On Mon, 17 Nov 2008 12:19:13 +0100, Subrata Modak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-11-14 at 12:40 -0500, Michael Kerrisk wrote: >> > Here's the latest version, for review-n-test enjoyment: >> >> I made a few small tweaks to the changelog: wording fixes, and para >> break fixes; other than that, changed the text to say that I rewrote>> (rather than updated) the test program. Please substitute it with the>> following. >> > I just did a quick patch for your test to run on LTP. If you have no > issue(s), can we add this to LTP ? > > LTP-list, > > Can you also enrich this patch ? I have some nitpicks, in decreasing severity: First, the syscall, I believe, is not targeted at i386 and x86-64 only.Therefore, it is not wise to have these explicitly mentioned in the code.Also, it would be better not to "#error" if the arch isn't one of thosefortunate, because ltp should build on others too. This should be fixed bypatch 1. Disclaimer: This patch should make it compile (and fail at runtime with TCONF) on all kernels that don't have the syscall, and actually run thetest on all kernels that do, depending on kernel headers version. However, I didn't test this (especially the selection of the syscall), so it needsto be checked. Second, if any of the syscalls vital for the test fails, it's preferableto output the error message too, and call tst_brk() for cleanup (patch 2).Third, there it would probably be better to use TFAIL/TPASS for recordingsuccess and failure instead of manual boolean flags (patch 3). Last, I think a successful test should print as little as possible and multiline messages like "calling syscall..." are really not that useful. Patch 4 disables them.
Thanks Jiri for taking out time to investigate and coming out with a clean implementation for this new test case. I have the following points: 1) Patch no. 1 will fail to apply due to absence of ltp/testcases/kernel/include/stub-list in the original source code. I think you wanted to modify testcases/kernel/include/stub-list.orig. Even
That's because vapier deleted that file 5 days ago without telling anyone :( More on that in a separate mail.
without this file, the patch will fail to compile with the following error: cc -Wall -I../../include -g -Wall -I../../../../include -Wall accept4_01.c -L../../../../lib -lltp -o accept4_01 accept4_01.c: In function ‘accept4’: accept4_01.c:176: error: ‘__NR_accept4’ undeclared (first use in this function) accept4_01.c:176: error: (Each undeclared identifier is reported only once accept4_01.c:176: error: for each function it appears in.) make[4]: *** [accept4_01] Error 1
The corrected (though untested) patch is attached.
2) Other Patches apply with lots of HUNKS. Please take a clean diff.
Well, they apply cleanly if you apply them in sequence, and they apply fine individually (except for 4, which needs 3). I think I cannot do much more when the patches all deal with the same file.
3) Being too ambitious, i would also request you to kindly introduce
other features that we normally have for a system call test in LTP like:
i) No. of loops to run,
ii) Time, etc,
albeit in your spare time.
I don't promise anything - the biggest problem with implementing these features is that I don't know what are they for and how do they work, so I would probably just copy&paste them from a different test.
Regards
Jiri Palecek
--
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/
0001-Compile-the-accept4-test-on-kernels-that-lack-it.patch
Description: Binary data
------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
