I revised patch into "WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0", and tried to test. After that, "nanosleep" could work correctly. I agree with your proposal.
Thank you for your help! -Tomonori Mitani -----Original Message----- From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:45 AM To: Mitani Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [LTP] "nanosleep{02～04}" testcase failed 2009/12/20 Mitani <[email protected]>: > Hi, > > I found that "nanosleep{02～04}" testcase failed like follow example. > ---------- > nanosleep02 1 TFAIL : child process exited abnormally > ---------- > > In ${LTPROOT}/testcases/kernel/syscalls/nanosleep/nanosleep{02～04}.c, > WEXITSTATUS(status) is used to judge whether child process did exit > normally. > But WEXITSTATUS macro is used only when WIFEXITED macro returned "true". > So, it cannot get the correct results and it terminated with the above > error. > > To solve this problem, I thought that we had better use WIFEXITED macro > instead of the WEXITSTATUS macro. > Here are patches to fix these problem: > ============ > --- nanosleep02.c 2009-11-02 22:57:17.000000000 +0900 > +++ nanosleep02.c.new 2009-12-21 14:15:19.000000000 +0900 > @@ -162,10 +162,10 @@ > > /* Wait for child to execute */ > wait(&status); > - if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0) { > + if (WIFEXITED(status)) { > tst_resm(TPASS, "Functionality of nanosleep() " > "is correct"); > - } else if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 1) { > + } else if (!WIFEXITED(status)) { > tst_resm(TFAIL, "child process exited abnormally"); > } > } /* End for TEST_LOOPING */ > > ============ > > ============ > --- nanosleep03.c 2009-11-02 22:57:17.000000000 +0900 > +++ nanosleep03.c.new 2009-12-21 15:03:52.000000000 +0900 > @@ -143,10 +143,10 @@ > > /* Wait for child to execute */ > wait(&status); > - if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0) { > + if (WIFEXITED(status)) { > tst_resm(TPASS, "nanosleep() fails, interrupted" > " by signal, error:%d", EINTR); > - } else if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 1) { > + } else if (!WIFEXITED(status)) { > tst_resm(TFAIL, "child process exited abnormally"); > } > } /* End for TEST_LOOPING */ > > ============ > > ============ > --- nanosleep04.c 2009-11-02 22:57:17.000000000 +0900 > +++ nanosleep04.c.new 2009-12-21 15:04:24.000000000 +0900 > @@ -147,10 +147,10 @@ > > /* Wait for child to execute */ > wait(&status); > - if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0) { > + if (WIFEXITED(status)) { > tst_resm(TPASS, "nanosleep() fails, invalid pause " > "time, error:%d", EINVAL); > - } else if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 1) { > + } else if (!WIFEXITED(status)) { > tst_resm(TFAIL, "child process exited abnormally"); > } > } /* End for TEST_LOOPING */ > ============ I agree that the test's validation step is written incorrectly, as per the wait(2) manpage: WIFEXITED(status) returns true if the child terminated normally, that is, by call- ing exit(3) or _exit(2), or by returning from main(). WEXITSTATUS(status) returns the exit status of the child. This consists of the least significant 8 bits of the status argument that the child specified in a call to exit(3) or _exit(2) or as the argument for a return statement in main(). This macro should only be employed if WIFEXITED returned true. in particular the precondition for calling WEXITSTATUS, but should it be WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0 => PASS, else FAIL? Thanks, -Garrett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
