On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 7:28 PM, Garrett Cooper <[email protected]> wrote: > On May 12, 2011, at 2:59 AM, Bob Liu wrote: > > Since new kerenl change, sockioctl01 always fail like this: > > sockioctl01 4 TFAIL : ATMARK on UDP ; returned -1 (expected -1), errno > 25 (expected 22) > > This patch fix the except return val from EINVAL to ENOTTY. > > Signed-off-by: Bob Liu <[email protected]> > --- > sockioctl01.c | 2 +- > 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sockioctl/sockioctl01.c > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sockioctl/sockioctl01.c > index aa66bc3..6ad7a4a 100644 > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sockioctl/sockioctl01.c > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sockioctl/sockioctl01.c > @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ struct test_case_t { /* test case structure */ > { > PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0, SIOCATMARK, &optval, > (struct sockaddr *)&fsin1, sizeof(fsin1), -1, > - EINVAL, setup1, cleanup1, "ATMARK on UDP"} > + ENOTTY, setup1, cleanup1, "ATMARK on UDP"} > , { > PF_INET, SOCK_DGRAM, 0, SIOCGIFCONF, &ifc, > (struct sockaddr *)&fsin1, sizeof(fsin1), 0, > -- > 1.6.3.3 > > This will fix the later kernel, but break earlier ones. Could you please > submit a patch that does a check for the kernel version, a data structure, > etc and adjusts the expected values accordingly?
Whether using tst_kvercmp() can be accepted ? Thanks -- Regards, --Bob ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Achieve unprecedented app performance and reliability What every C/C++ and Fortran developer should know. Learn how Intel has extended the reach of its next-generation tools to help boost performance applications - inlcuding clusters. http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-dev2devmay _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
