Hi,
On 07/01/2014 08:21 PM, chru...@suse.cz wrote:
> Hi!
>> If testcase calls tst_brkm(...) to terminate test, usually we need
>> to serch the message outputted by tst_brkm() to locate it in test
>> program, it is inefficient, especially we have same messages, so here
>> we choose to make tst_brkm more informative.
>>
>> E.g.:
>> We execute getxattr01 before this patch:
>> [root@localhost getxattr]# ./getxattr01
>> getxattr01 1 TCONF : No xattr support in fs or mount without
>> user_xattr option
>> getxattr01 2 TCONF : Remaining cases not appropriate for configuration
>>
>> After this patch:
>> [root@localhost getxattr]# ./getxattr01
>> getxattr01 1 TCONF : getxattr01.c:158: No xattr support in fs or mount
>> without user_xattr option
>> getxattr01 2 TCONF : Remaining cases not appropriate for configuration
>
> Looks useful to me. I wonder if we should limit the change to just
> tst_brkm() or if we should add it to tst_resm() too.
OK, I'll add the informative message for tst_brkm() and tst_resm(), but not for
tst_resm(TPASS), because most of test cases will succeed and will output too
many
redundant messages, users maybe unhappy...
>
>> Signed-off-by: Xiaoguang Wang <wangxg.f...@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> include/test.h | 9 +++++++--
>> lib/tst_res.c | 9 ++++++---
>> tools/apicmds/ltpapicmd.c | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/test.h b/include/test.h
>> index a4a23e3..9024493 100644
>> --- a/include/test.h
>> +++ b/include/test.h
>> @@ -126,8 +126,13 @@ void tst_resm_hexd(int ttype, const void *buf, size_t
>> size, const char *arg_fmt,
>> __attribute__ ((format (printf, 4, 5)));
>> void tst_brk(int ttype, const char *fname, void (*func)(void), const char
>> *arg_fmt, ...)
>> __attribute__ ((format (printf, 4, 5)));
>> -void tst_brkm(int ttype, void (*func)(void), const char *arg_fmt, ...)
>> - __attribute__ ((format (printf, 3, 4))) LTP_ATTRIBUTE_NORETURN;
>> +void tst_brkm_d(const char *file, const int lineno, int ttype,
>> + void (*func)(void), const char *arg_fmt, ...)
>> + __attribute__ ((format (printf, 5, 6))) LTP_ATTRIBUTE_NORETURN;
>> +#define tst_brkm(ttype, func, arg_fmt, ...) \
>> + tst_brkm_d(__FILE__, __LINE__, (ttype), (func),\
>> + (arg_fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__)
>> +
>> void tst_require_root(void (*func)(void));
>> int tst_environ(void);
>> void tst_exit(void) LTP_ATTRIBUTE_NORETURN;
>> diff --git a/lib/tst_res.c b/lib/tst_res.c
>> index 31186e0..015ca52 100644
>> --- a/lib/tst_res.c
>> +++ b/lib/tst_res.c
>> @@ -721,10 +721,12 @@ void tst_resm_hexd(int ttype, const void *buf, size_t
>> size, const char *arg_fmt,
>> }
>>
>> /*
>> - * tst_brkm() - Interface to tst_brk(), with no filename.
>> + * tst_brkm_d() - Interface to tst_brk(), with no filename.
>> */
>> -void tst_brkm(int ttype, void (*func) (void), const char *arg_fmt, ...)
>> +void tst_brkm_d(const char *file, const int lineno, int ttype,
>> + void (*func)(void), const char *arg_fmt, ...)
>> {
>> + int len;
>> char tmesg[USERMESG];
>>
>> #if DEBUG
>> @@ -733,7 +735,8 @@ void tst_brkm(int ttype, void (*func) (void), const char
>> *arg_fmt, ...)
>> fflush(stdout);
>> #endif
>>
>> - EXPAND_VAR_ARGS(tmesg, arg_fmt, USERMESG);
>> + len = sprintf(tmesg, "%s:%d: ", file, lineno);
>> + EXPAND_VAR_ARGS(tmesg + len, arg_fmt, USERMESG);
>>
>> tst_brk(ttype, NULL, func, "%s", tmesg);
>> /* Shouldn't be reach, but fixes build time warnings about noreturn. */
>> diff --git a/tools/apicmds/ltpapicmd.c b/tools/apicmds/ltpapicmd.c
>> index 220edae..ae25244 100644
>> --- a/tools/apicmds/ltpapicmd.c
>> +++ b/tools/apicmds/ltpapicmd.c
>> @@ -173,7 +173,7 @@ void apicmd_brkm(int argc, char *argv[])
>> }
>> trestype = ident_ttype((argv++)[0]);
>> argv++;
>> - tst_brkm(trestype, NULL, "%s", *argv);
>> + tst_brk(trestype, NULL, NULL, "%s", *argv);
>> }
>>
>> void apicmd_resm(int argc, char *argv[])
>
>
> I don't like the fact that this changes tst_brkm() to a macro, but I
> don't have a better idea.
:)
>
>>From a technical point, maybe I would just use tst_brkm_ instead of
> tst_brkm_d, otherwise it looks correct.
what about _tst_brkm() and _tst_resm()?
>
> Have you recompiled LTP with this change? Does everything work as
> expected?
Yeah, But I only test the whole syscalls test suite. Tonight I will
have a whole LTP test in RHEL7.0GA, thanks.
Regards,
Xiaoguang Wang
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open source business process management suite built on Java and Eclipse
Turn processes into business applications with Bonita BPM Community Edition
Quickly connect people, data, and systems into organized workflows
Winner of BOSSIE, CODIE, OW2 and Gartner awards
http://p.sf.net/sfu/Bonitasoft
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
