Sometimes `if (access(...) && errno == ENOENT)' doesn't work due to
errno not captures correctly from access() exection. This patch put them
into 2 nested if-condition statements.
Signed-off-by: Caspar Zhang <cas...@casparzhang.com>
---
testcases/kernel/mem/zram/zram01.c | 20 ++++++++++++++------
1 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/mem/zram/zram01.c b/testcases/kernel/mem/zram/zram01.c
index 63437c1..c382525 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/mem/zram/zram01.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/mem/zram/zram01.c
@@ -106,16 +106,24 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
void setup(void)
{
+ int retried = 0;
+
tst_require_root(NULL);
- if (access(PATH_ZRAM, R_OK|W_OK|X_OK) == -1 && errno == ENOENT) {
- system("modprobe zram");
- modprobe = 1;
- if (access(PATH_ZRAM, R_OK|W_OK|X_OK) == -1 && errno == ENOENT)
- tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL, "system has no zram device.");
- else
+retry:
+ if (access(PATH_ZRAM, R_OK|W_OK|X_OK) == -1) {
+ if (errno == ENOENT) {
+ if (retried)
+ tst_brkm(TCONF, NULL,
+ "system has no zram device.");
+ system("modprobe zram");
+ modprobe = 1;
+ retried = 1;
+ goto retry;
+ } else
tst_brkm(TBROK|TERRNO, NULL, "access");
}
+
tst_sig(FORK, DEF_HANDLER, cleanup);
TEST_PAUSE;
}
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All the data continuously generated in your IT infrastructure
contains a definitive record of customers, application performance,
security threats, fraudulent activity, and more. Splunk takes this
data and makes sense of it. IT sense. And common sense.
http://p.sf.net/sfu/splunk-novd2d
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
