Ok.. one last thing.
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:15 PM, Shi Weihua <[email protected]> wrote:
> at 2010-2-18 12:25, Rishikesh K Rajak wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 09:10:48AM -0800, Garrett Cooper wrote:
>>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Rishikesh <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Hi Shi,
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for your patch, still i am finding time to look into your patch.
>>>> Will reply you soon.
>>>>
>>>> http://marc.info/?l=ltp-list&m=126502355614857&w=2
>>>
>>> I looked at the patch finally.
>>
>> Thanks garret.
>>>
>>> Please use TTERRNO instead of strerror(...) for the reported value.
>>> There's no reason why you should use strerror(...) there as that's
>>> already done with tst_res(3).
>>
>> Shi, can you please incorporate changes which garret has suggested and
>> resend the patch again to ltp-list@ .
>
> Ok, i recreated the patch based on garret's suggestion.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shi Weihua <[email protected]>
> ---
> --- testcases/kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c.orig 2010-02-22
> 14:38:26.000000000 -0500
> +++ testcases/kernel/syscalls/sysctl/sysctl03.c 2010-02-22 15:08:03.000000000
> -0500
> @@ -22,15 +22,18 @@
> * sysctl03.c
> *
> * DESCRIPTION
> - * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM correctly.
> + * Testcase to check that sysctl(2) sets errno to EPERM or EACCES
> + * correctly. But it will return EACCES on kernels that are 2.6.33-rc1
> + * and higher.
> *
> * ALGORITHM
> * a. Call sysctl(2) as a root user, and attempt to write data
> * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write
> - * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM.
> + * permissions even for the root, it should fail EPERM or EACCES.
> * b. Call sysctl(2) as a non-root user, and attempt to write data
> * to the kernel_table[]. Since the table does not have write
> - * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM.
> + * permission for the regular user, it should fail with EPERM
> + * or EACCES.
> *
> * USAGE: <for command-line>
> * sysctl03 [-c n] [-e] [-i n] [-I x] [-P x] [-t]
> @@ -43,6 +46,7 @@
> *
> * HISTORY
> * 07/2001 Ported by Wayne Boyer
> + * 02/2010 Updated by [email protected]
> *
> * RESTRICTIONS
> * Test must be run as root.
> @@ -82,6 +86,7 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> {
> int lc;
> char *msg;
> + int exp_eno;
>
> char osname[OSNAMESZ];
> int osnamelth, status;
> @@ -96,6 +101,13 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>
> setup();
>
> + if ((tst_kvercmp(2, 6, 32)) <= 0){
> + exp_eno = EPERM;
> + } else {
> + exp_eno = EACCES;
> + exp_enos[0] = EACCES;
> + }
> +
> TEST_EXP_ENOS(exp_enos);
>
> /* check looping state if -i option is given */
> @@ -114,13 +126,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> } else {
> TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);
>
> - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) {
> - tst_resm(TFAIL,
> - "Expected EPERM (%d), got %d: %s",
> - EPERM, TEST_ERRNO,
> - strerror(TEST_ERRNO));
> + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {
> + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got unxpected
> error");
> } else {
> - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM error");
> + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected error");
> }
> }
>
> @@ -147,12 +156,10 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> } else {
> TEST_ERROR_LOG(TEST_ERRNO);
>
> - if (TEST_ERRNO != EPERM) {
> - tst_resm(TFAIL, "Expected EPERM, got "
> - "%d", TEST_ERRNO);
> + if (TEST_ERRNO != exp_eno) {
Why can't this be exp_enos[0] ?
> + tst_resm(TFAIL|TTERRNO, "Got
> unxpected error");
Typo.
> } else {
> - tst_resm(TPASS, "Got expected EPERM "
> - "error");
> + tst_resm(TPASS|TTERRNO, "Got expected
> error");
> }
> }
>
>
> Thank you.
> - Shi Weihua
It always helps to understand what's expected vs unexpected
without having to look at the source code. Could you please revise the
tst_resm format strings to be something like the following?
tst_resm (TPASS | TERRNO, "Got expected error (errno = %d, ret_code =
%d", exp_errno_blah, exp_ret_code_blah);
OR:
tst_resm (TPASS | TERRNO, "Got unexpected error (expected errno = %d,
ret_code = %d - got errno = %d, ret_code = %d", exp_errno_blah,
exp_ret_code_blah, errno_blah, ret_code_blah);
I've been debating about doing this in a macro out of include/,
but I haven't gotten there yet...
Thanks,
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Download Intel® Parallel Studio Eval
Try the new software tools for yourself. Speed compiling, find bugs
proactively, and fine-tune applications for parallel performance.
See why Intel Parallel Studio got high marks during beta.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-sw-dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
