On Thu, 2009-11-05 at 12:34 -0800, Henry Yei wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > Hi! > > While looking on compilation warnings I've discovered that test > > testcases/kernel/syscalls/rt_sigqueueinfo/rt_sigqeueuinfo.c has several > > issues. > > > > The most problematic ones are: > > > > * There is quite a number of meaningless comments. > > > > * There is tst_exit() in the middle of the for cycle, so option > > -i is effectively disabled > > > > * The test is creating temporary directories, why do we need that > > for testing kernel signal queues? > > > > * Why we are forking and doing nothing in the parent process? > > > > * We are sending signal 17 that could be SIGUSR2, SIGCHILD or SIGSTOP > > and depends on hardware platform so symbolic name rather than number > > should be used. > > > > * We are sending singnal but there is no checking that it > > arrives. > > > > * There is no return, exit() or tst_exit() at the end of main() > > > > * Casting NULL to (char*) or (option_t*) is meaningless. > > > > ... > > > > Also test uses usctest.h that is IMHO not really useful because it adds > > too > > much complexity and its code is broken too :(. It should be either > > fixed or > > thrown away. > > > > Looking into crackerjack tests it looks to me like crackerjack just > > tries to > > call syscalls to crash the kernel and don't care about the userspace > > too much > > (at least the tests I've seen). So using their code is IMHO > > questionable. > > > > And other rt_sig* tests have some of the issues written above. > > > > I would really like to fix these tests, but before I start rewriting > > them, > > I'm asking for opinions. > > > > -- > > Cyril Hrubis > > [email protected] > > > > Cyril, > > For the rt_sig* tests I have some changes in my internal tree to set > SIGSETSIZE depending on arch rather than to use the hardcoded value of 8 in > orderto fix mips failures. Please consider folding this change into your > proposal. I've submitted similar changes in a recent ppoll01 patch, and am > awaiting comments on correctness. > > Ex) > > +#if defined (__mips__) > +#define SIGSETSIZE 16 > +#else > +#define SIGSETSIZE 8 > +#endif > > -TEST(syscall(__NR_rt_sigprocmask, SIG_BLOCK, &set, &oset, > 8)); > +TEST(syscall(__NR_rt_sigprocmask, SIG_BLOCK, &set, &oset, > SIGSETSIZE));
Yes, i would vote for this approach. Please consider submitting your overall changes. Regards-- Subrata > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with > Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july > _______________________________________________ > Ltp-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with Crystal Reports now. http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
