On Dec 11, 2009, at 1:21 AM, Mitani wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Sorry for my many many mails today.
>
>
> I ran tests with "ltp-2009-12-10" cvs.
>
> In my system (kernel 2.6.18-164.el5), kernel does not support
> control groups.
> So, when I ran test of "cgroup_fj", I got following message and the
> test faild by "FAIL 253".
>
> ------------
> ***error***:you must enable cgroup config in kernel
> ------------
>
> In the investigation for above error message, I found that there may be
> two problems,.
>
> (a) "cgroup_fj" test failed in the system not support "control groups".
> (b) "cgroup" test may passed by user-ID which isn't "root".
>
>
> (a) "cgroup_fj" test
> Above message is correct message, but exiting by "FAIL" is not
> correct, I think.
> Referring to the example of other tests, I think that the tests
> for non-supported functions must be finished in "PASS 0" basically.
> (For example, "move_pages{01...11}" tests exit in "PASS 0" and with
> "NUMA support not provided" messages.)
>
> I suggest following patch to resolve this problem.
>
> ============
> --- run_cgroup_test_fj.sh 2009-10-26 23:49:23.000000000 +0900
> +++ run_cgroup_test_fj.sh.new 2009-12-11 16:10:39.000000000 +0900
> @@ -40,7 +40,7 @@
>
> if ! [ -f /proc/cgroups ]; then
> echo "***error***:you must enable cgroup config in kernel";
> - exit -3;
> + exit 0;
> fi
>
> if [ ! -x $TESTROOT/cgroup_fj_proc ]; then
>
> ============
>
>
> (b) "cgroup" test
> I watched "cgroup" test source for hints for (a), and found another
> problem.
> If this test run by user-ID non-"root", it will exit in "PASS", I think.
> But I think that it must exit in "FAIL".
> Because this test cannot be tested only by "root" user.
>
> =========
> --- cgroup_regression_test.sh 2009-11-30 17:41:37.000000000 +0900
> +++ cgroup_regression_test.sh.new 2009-12-11 16:22:14.000000000 +0900
> @@ -37,7 +37,7 @@
>
> if [ "$USER" != root ]; then
> tst_brkm TBROK ignored "Test must be run as root"
> - exit 0
> + exit -1
> fi
>
> tst_kvercmp 2 6 29
1. Case 1 should be tst_brkm TCONF and should have exit 0 (like you suggested).
2. Case 2 should have the equivalent exit code for TBROK (it's in
include/test.h). $? -> -1 is undefined via POSIX and while it passes on bash,
it doesn't pass on ash, and thus would fail with busybox.
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return on Information:
Google Enterprise Search pays you back
Get the facts.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
