> -----Original Message----- > From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Thursday, November 12, 2009 1:43 AM > To: Henry Yei > Cc: [email protected]; LTP Mailing List > Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH][ppoll01] fix testcase 1, 5: pass correct > valuefor sigset_t for mips > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 10:13 PM > >> To: Henry Yei > >> Cc: [email protected]; LTP Mailing List > >> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH][ppoll01] fix testcase 1, 5: pass correct > >> valuefor sigset_t for mips > >> > >> On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 5:14 PM, Henry Yei <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] > >> >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 11:17 PM > >> >> To: Henry Yei > >> >> Cc: [email protected]; LTP Mailing List > >> >> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH][ppoll01] fix testcase 1, 5: pass > correct > >> >> valuefor sigset_t for mips > >> >> > >> >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Henry Yei <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> >> -----Original Message----- > >> >> >> From: Subrata Modak [mailto:[email protected]] > >> >> >> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:40 AM > >> >> >> To: Henry Yei > >> >> >> Cc: Garrett Cooper; LTP Mailing List > >> >> >> Subject: RE: [LTP] [PATCH][ppoll01] fix testcase 1, 5: pass > >> correct > >> >> >> valuefor sigset_t for mips > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Mon, 2009-11-02 at 14:09 -0800, Henry Yei wrote: > >> >> >> > Subrata, > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I've included Nicolas Joly's suggested removal of progdir to > >> force > >> >> >> the test to create all test files in the temp directory in the > >> >> attached > >> >> >> patch. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > I'm not sure why tst_exit() is needed when calling > cleanup(), > >> as > >> >> it > >> >> >> would be called by cleanup(). I can add it back, if needed. > Any > >> >> other > >> >> >> comments on the the appropriateness of "sizeof(sigmask)" would > >> also > >> >> be > >> >> >> welcomed. There are a few other tests with similar issues. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Henry, > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Probably because of heavy changes recently, this patch is not > >> >> applying > >> >> >> properly. Can you please rebase your changes: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> patching file testcases/kernel/syscalls/ppoll/ppoll01.c > >> >> >> Hunk #3 FAILED at 98. > >> >> >> Hunk #4 FAILED at 127. > >> >> >> Hunk #5 FAILED at 185. > >> >> >> Hunk #6 FAILED at 252. > >> >> >> 4 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file > >> >> >> testcases/kernel/syscalls/ppoll/ppoll01.c.rej > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Regards-- > >> >> >> Subrata > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > > -----Original Message----- > >> >> >> > > From: Subrata Modak [mailto:[email protected]] > >> >> >> > > Sent: Monday, November 02, 2009 5:59 AM > >> >> >> > > To: Henry Yei > >> >> >> > > Cc: Garrett Cooper; LTP Mailing List > >> >> >> > > Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH][ppoll01] fix testcase 1, 5: > pass > >> >> correct > >> >> >> > > valuefor sigset_t for mips > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > Any further work on this patch ? > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > Regards-- > >> >> >> > > Subrata > >> >> >> > > > >> >> >> > > On Wed, 2009-10-28 at 12:08 -0700, Henry Yei wrote: > >> >> >> > > > > -----Original Message----- > >> >> >> > > > > From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] > >> >> >> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, October 27, 2009 7:57 PM > >> >> >> > > > > To: Henry Yei > >> >> >> > > > > Cc: LTP Mailing List > >> >> >> > > > > Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH][ppoll01] fix testcase 1, 5: > >> pass > >> >> >> correct > >> >> >> > > > > value for sigset_t for mips > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 6:32 PM, Henry Yei > >> <[email protected]> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > > > > > All, > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > The patch attached for ppoll01: > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > cleans up spacing and code style > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > removes unneeded/broken debug option parsing > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > if test fails, it prints out the last failed errno, > >> rather > >> >> >> than > >> >> >> > > just > >> >> >> > > > > the > >> >> >> > > > > > last errno(which may have been successful) > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > passes in correct size of sigset_t for mips > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > Signed-off by: Henry Yei <[email protected]> > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > > This patch was tested/passed on x86, mips(little > >> endian), > >> >> and > >> >> >> > > > > ppc_82xx . > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > 1. Please keep tst_exit() at the bottom. > >> >> >> > > > > 2. Why can't we do sizeof(sigsetmask) ? > >> >> >> > > > > > >> >> >> > > > > Thanks, > >> >> >> > > > > -Garrett > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > Garrett, > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > You want me to put tst_exit() at the bottom, even though > it > >> is > >> >> >> called > >> >> >> > > within cleanup()? > >> >> >> > > > You mean sizeof(sigmask) ~ sizeof(sigset_t), right? That > >> code > >> >> was > >> >> >> > > commented out since version 1.1 which I thought was odd > too, > >> so > >> >> I > >> >> >> did > >> >> >> > > check sizeof(sigmask). > >> >> >> > > > However, sizeof(sigmask) on mips returns 128 which does > not > >> >> seem > >> >> >> > > correct. I haven't checked the other architectures, but I > >> >> suspect > >> >> >> some > >> >> >> > > might have a similar mismatch. Apparently sigset_t may > have > >> >> >> different > >> >> >> > > values when returned from glibc vs kernel space. More > >> >> information > >> >> >> from > >> >> >> > > this post: > >> >> >> > > > > >> >> >> > > > http://lists.uclibc.org/pipermail/uclibc/2009- > >> >> January/041850.html > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > Subrata, > >> >> > > >> >> > I've included the ppoll01 patch which should apply cleanly to > the > >> >> latest in CVS. > >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> Hi Henry, > >> >> Could you change this line: > >> >> > >> >> + tst_resm(TFAIL, "%s failed - errno > = > >> %d : %s", > >> >> TCID, > >> >> + last_failed_errno, > >> >> strerror(last_failed_errno)); > >> >> > >> >> to this please? > >> >> > >> >> + tst_resm(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "%s > failed", > >> TCID); > >> >> > >> >> last_failed_errno should become TEST_ERRNO if this change is > >> done, > >> >> IIRC. > >> >> > >> > > >> > I've attached the ppoll01 patch with Garrett's suggested changes > to > >> use TEST_ERRNO. > >> > >> You could just completely zap last_failed_errno and make it > test_errno > >> instead. That's what I was suggesting with the previous reply. > > On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 11:25 AM, Henry Yei <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wouldn't TEST_ERRNO be the errno of the last TEST() that was run, > rather than the last failed one? > > > > > > > Yup! The goal is to drop the additional variable > (last_failed_errno) so that only TEST_ERRNO is required and then all > you need to do is use TTERRNO and you're golden :). > Thanks, > -Garrett
Attached is the poll01 patch with last_failed_errno and associated code removed.
ppoll01.patch
Description: ppoll01.patch
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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
