On 06.11.2016 17:38, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 15:03:31 +0000 > From: "Kamil Rytarowski" <ka...@netbsd.org> > Message-ID: <20161106150331.25fb2f...@cvs.netbsd.org> > > | The t_wait_noproc_wnohang adds to options (except wait(2), wait3(2)) > > Why exclude wait3() ? (Not that it really matters, wait3() and wait4() > are the same thing modulo the pid paramater, which isn't being used here) >
This was my mistake, I will correct it.
> Could you also add tests (for wait4() and later, not wait() or wait3())
> where the process has a child, but the pid parameter (which is why not
> wait() or wait3() as there isn't one) is not the pid of the child ?
>
> Also test (for wait3() and later) the WNOHANG case where the child
> exists, but has not exited yet ...
>
> When you do that you also need to do a wait to clean up the child when
> it exits ... you get to also test wait returning a value, as the child
> should just sleep, then once the first waits (not expected to fetch
> the process are finished) kill() the child to avoid waiting for the
> sleep() to finish (delaying the test needlessly and perhaps getting
> caught up in the qemu timing issues) and what's more you get to check
> that the exit reason and signal number are correct (note that for waitid()
> you need to supply, and use, a siginfo_t to get the values, and should
> for wait6() as well - and verify both it, and wait6's status arg).
>
> The basic model should be ...
>
> child = fork(); /* test for -1 ... */
> if (child == 0) {
> sleep(10); /* plenty long enough */
> _exit(0);
> }
> pid = waitpid(child+10, ...); /* expect error */
> pid = waitpid(child, WNOHANG); /* expect 0 */
> kill(child, SIGTERM);
> pid = waitpid(child, &status, ...); /* expect child */
> /* expect WIFSIGNALLED(status), and WTERMSIG(status)==SIGTERM)
>
> you can deal with this in one generic function to do the work,
> and N helper functions that do the waits using their different arg
> sequences - where all the helper funcs have the same arg lists (even
> down to a siginfo_t inall of them) so you can then just call the
> generic routine N times, with each of the N different wait funcs
> as an arg, like
>
> int generic_func( int waitfunc(int, int, int *, siginfo_t *),
> int flags, int *status, siginfo_t *si) {
> {
> /* then as above, except instead of calling waitpid()
> you would do
> pid = (*waitfunc)(child+10, flags, status, si); /* + checks */
> pid = (*waitfunc)(child, flags|WNOHANG, status, si); /* +...*/
> pid = (*waitfunc)(child, flags, status, si); /* check
> pid==child */
> return pid; /* then return as rest of checking
> depends on which wait func was used */
>
> }
>
> or something along those lines, and call that as
>
> then implement
> waitpid_func(int child, int flags, int *status, siginfo_t *si)
> {
> return waitpid(child, status, flags); /* si is unused here */
> }
> (and so on for the others), and then call
>
> pid = generic_func(waitpid, WNOHANG, &status, &si);
> /* validate results in status - si ignored of course */
> pid = generic_func(waitid, WNOHANG, &status, &si);
> /* validate results (from si), expect 0 from final pid,
> ignore unused status */
> /*etc etc*/
>
> (details need to be fleshed out!)
>
>
> I am not yet certain that the current behaviour of wait6() and waitid()
> is actually wrong, so the expected result, and expect_fail for those ones
> might be premature.
>
> kre
>
Thank you for good suggestions. I will add them once t_ptrace_wait*
family of tests will land the sources.
I have also other tests in mind in the t_wait* family and I will add
them too.
I need to go out for few hours and unless there will be issues in the
code I plan to finish everything mentioned above tonight.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
