[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       ltp-list
Subject:    Re: [LTP]
From:       Garrett Cooper <yanegomi () gmail ! com>
Date:       2009-12-22 17:35:31
Message-ID: 364299f40912220935h6b0a53cbi3c9acfe81cc48561 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 9:17 PM, Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> wrote:
>
> I revised patch into "WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0", and tried to test.
> After that, "nanosleep" could work correctly.
> I agree with your proposal.
>
> Thank you for your help!
>
> -Tomonori Mitani
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:yanegomi@gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:45 AM
> To: Mitani
> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [LTP] "nanosleep{02～04}" testcase failed
>
> 2009/12/20 Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp>:
>> Hi,
>>
>> I found that "nanosleep{02～04}" testcase failed like follow example.
>> ----------
>> nanosleep02    1  TFAIL  :  child process exited abnormally
>> ----------
>>
>> In ${LTPROOT}/testcases/kernel/syscalls/nanosleep/nanosleep{02～04}.c,
>> WEXITSTATUS(status) is used to judge whether child process did exit
>> normally.
>> But WEXITSTATUS macro is used only when WIFEXITED macro returned "true".
>> So, it cannot get the correct results and it terminated with the above
>> error.
>>
>> To solve this problem, I thought that we had better use WIFEXITED macro
>> instead of the WEXITSTATUS macro.
>> Here are patches to fix these problem:
>> ============
>> --- nanosleep02.c       2009-11-02 22:57:17.000000000 +0900
>> +++ nanosleep02.c.new   2009-12-21 14:15:19.000000000 +0900
>> @@ -162,10 +162,10 @@
>>
>>                /* Wait for child to execute */
>>                wait(&status);
>> -               if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0) {
>> +               if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
>>                        tst_resm(TPASS, "Functionality of nanosleep() "
>>                                 "is correct");
>> -               } else if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 1) {
>> +               } else if (!WIFEXITED(status)) {
>>                        tst_resm(TFAIL, "child process exited abnormally");
>>                }
>>        }                       /* End for TEST_LOOPING */
>>
>> ============
>>
>> ============
>> --- nanosleep03.c       2009-11-02 22:57:17.000000000 +0900
>> +++ nanosleep03.c.new   2009-12-21 15:03:52.000000000 +0900
>> @@ -143,10 +143,10 @@
>>
>>                /* Wait for child to execute */
>>                wait(&status);
>> -               if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0) {
>> +               if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
>>                        tst_resm(TPASS, "nanosleep() fails, interrupted"
>>                                 " by signal, error:%d", EINTR);
>> -               } else if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 1) {
>> +               } else if (!WIFEXITED(status)) {
>>                        tst_resm(TFAIL, "child process exited abnormally");
>>                }
>>        }                       /* End for TEST_LOOPING */
>>
>> ============
>>
>> ============
>> --- nanosleep04.c       2009-11-02 22:57:17.000000000 +0900
>> +++ nanosleep04.c.new   2009-12-21 15:04:24.000000000 +0900
>> @@ -147,10 +147,10 @@
>>
>>                /* Wait for child to execute */
>>                wait(&status);
>> -               if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0) {
>> +               if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
>>                        tst_resm(TPASS, "nanosleep() fails, invalid pause "
>>                                 "time, error:%d", EINVAL);
>> -               } else if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 1) {
>> +               } else if (!WIFEXITED(status)) {
>>                        tst_resm(TFAIL, "child process exited abnormally");
>>                }
>>        }                       /* End for TEST_LOOPING */
>> ============
>
> I agree that the test's validation step is written incorrectly, as per
> the wait(2) manpage:
>
>
>       WIFEXITED(status)
>              returns true if the child terminated normally, that is, by call-
>              ing exit(3) or _exit(2), or by returning from main().
>
>       WEXITSTATUS(status)
>              returns the exit status of the  child.   This  consists  of  the
>              least  significant  8 bits of the status argument that the child
>              specified in a call to exit(3) or _exit(2) or  as  the  argument
>              for  a  return  statement  in main().  This macro should only be
>              employed if WIFEXITED returned true.
>
>    in particular the precondition for calling WEXITSTATUS, but should
> it be WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0 => PASS, else
> FAIL?

Committed -- thanks!
-Garrett
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support
A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy
Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev 
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]