On 08/21/2013 04:19 PM, Dave Kleikamp wrote:
> On 08/21/2013 01:50 AM, Jan Stancek wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Dave Kleikamp" <dave.kleik...@oracle.com>
>>> To: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
>>> Sent: Tuesday, 20 August, 2013 10:34:39 PM
>>> Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] ltp: handle missing online file
>>>
>>> gather_node_cpus() fails if the /sys/devices/system/node/nodeX/cpuX/online
>>> file is missing for any cpu other than cpu0. The absence of the online file
>>> should not be treated as a failure, but as an indication that the cpu is
>>> not hot-pluggable and cannot be taken offline.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Dave Kleikamp <dave.kleik...@oracle.com>
>> Looks good to me. One comment inline.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Jan Stancek <jstan...@redhat.com>
>>
>>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c b/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c
>>> index 9bc926e..99243a6 100644
>>> --- a/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c
>>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/mem/lib/mem.c
>>> @@ -786,16 +786,14 @@ static void gather_node_cpus(char *cpus, long nd)
>>>             if (path_exist(path, nd, i)) {
>>                                       ^^  ^^
>>                                       |---|--> Are these parameters used for 
>> anything?
>>                                                Line above already does 
>> snprintf.
> They aren't. That's why I left them off the call I added below.
>
>>>                     snprintf(path1, BUFSIZ, "%s/online", path);
>>>                     /*
>>> -                    * No cpu0/online knob, as it can't support to
>>> -                    * on/offline cpu0, so if the 'nd' node contains
>>> -                    * cpu0, it should skip to check cpu0/online's value.
>>> +                    * if there is no online knob, then the cpu cannot
>>> +                    * be taken offline
>>>                      */
>>> -                   if (i == 0)
>>> -                           goto next;
>>> -                   SAFE_FILE_SCANF(cleanup, path1, "%ld", &online);
>>> -                   if (online == 0)
>>> -                           continue;
>>> -next:
>>> +                   if (path_exist(path1)) {
>>> +                           SAFE_FILE_SCANF(cleanup, path1, "%ld", &online);
>>> +                           if (online == 0)
>>> +                                   continue;
>>> +                   }
>>>                     sprintf(buf, "%d,", i);
>>>                     strcat(cpus, buf);
>>>             }
>>>
>>>
Hi.

I'm an interested party :)

What should be modified to include this patch in upstream?

Just substitute:

   if (path_exist(path, nd, i)) {

to:

   if (path_exists(path)) {

Right?


Thanks.






------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Introducing Performance Central, a new site from SourceForge and 
AppDynamics. Performance Central is your source for news, insights, 
analysis and resources for efficient Application Performance Management. 
Visit us today!
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897511&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Reply via email to