On Thu, 2014-02-20 at 06:05 -0500, Jan Stancek wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Zeng Linggang" <[email protected]>
> > To: "Jan Stancek" <[email protected]>
> > Cc: "ltp-list" <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Thursday, 20 February, 2014 10:50:13 AM
> > Subject: [PATCH v3 2/2] mlock/mlock02.c: add EPERM and ENOMEM errno tests
> >
> > Add EPERM and ENOMEM errno tests for mlock(2).
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Zeng Linggang <[email protected]>
>
> Hi,
>
> part1 looks good to me, comments for part2 are inline.
>
Thanks for your review.
> > ---
> > testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c | 65
> > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
> > 1 file changed, 62 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> > b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> > index 811d141..79f1d29 100644
> > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/mlock/mlock02.c
> > @@ -20,13 +20,22 @@
> > * ALGORITHM
> > * test 1:
> > * Call mlock with a NULL address. ENOMEM should be returned
> > + * test 2:
> > + * The caller was not privileged and its RLIMIT_MEMLOCK soft
> > + * resource limit was 0. EPERM should be returned
> > + * test 3:
> > + * The caller was not privileged and its RLIMIT_MEMLOCK soft
> > + * resource limit was nonzero, but tried to lock more memory than
> > + * the limit permitted. ENOMEM should be returned
> > */
> >
> > #include <errno.h>
> > #include <unistd.h>
> > #include <sys/mman.h>
> > +#include <pwd.h>
> > #include "test.h"
> > #include "usctest.h"
> > +#include "safe_macros.h"
> >
> > char *TCID = "mlock02";
> >
> > @@ -36,21 +45,29 @@ struct test_case_t {
> > void **addr;
> > int len;
> > int error;
> > - void (*setupfunc) (struct test_case_t *);
> > + void (*setupfunc) ();
>
> If you don't want any parameters add void.
>
> > + void (*cleanupfunc) (void);
> > };
> >
> > static void *addr1;
> > +static char addr2[1024];
> > +static struct passwd *ltpuser;
> > static void setup(void);
> > static void setup1(struct test_case_t *);
> > +static void setup2(void);
> > +static void setup3(void);
> > +static void cleanup2(void);
> > static void cleanup(void);
> > static void mlock_verify(struct test_case_t *);
> >
> > static struct test_case_t TC[] = {
> > - {&addr1, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1},
> > + {&addr1, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1, NULL},
> > + {(void **)&addr2, 1024, EPERM, setup2, cleanup2},
> > + {(void **)&addr2, 1024, ENOMEM, setup3, cleanup2},
> > };
>
> I think I misunderstood intent of **addr. As you outlined it
> above, we can remove one pointer entirely along with addr1:
>
> -static void *addr1;
>
> struct test_case_t {
> - void **addr;
> + void *addr;
>
> static struct test_case_t TC[] = {
> - {&addr1, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1, NULL},
> - {(void **)&addr2, 1024, EPERM, setup2, cleanup2},
> - {(void **)&addr2, 1024, ENOMEM, setup3, cleanup2},
> + {NULL, 1024, ENOMEM, setup1, NULL},
> + {addr2, 1024, EPERM, setup2, cleanup2},
> + {addr2, 1024, ENOMEM, setup3, cleanup2},
>
> static void mlock_verify(struct test_case_t *test)
> - TEST(mlock(*(test->addr), test->len));
> + TEST(mlock(test->addr, test->len));
>
> static void setup1(struct test_case_t *test)
> -#else
> - *test->addr = NULL;
>
>
Yes. We can remove that. And it looks well. :)
> I'm going to try this testcase on ia64 to have a look at that
> ia64 specific setup.
>
Thank you very much.
Best regards,
Zeng
> Regards,
> Jan
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Managing the Performance of Cloud-Based Applications
Take advantage of what the Cloud has to offer - Avoid Common Pitfalls.
Read the Whitepaper.
http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=121054471&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
