Hi!
> 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) {
This one keeps me wondering. What exactly is wrong with this line?
--
Cyril Hrubis
chru...@suse.cz
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Write once. Port to many.
Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development. Create
new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity. appdeveloper.intel.com/join
http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
