Re: _[PATCH_v2_3/3]_tests/migration：fix_unreachable_path_in_stress_test

[maozy <maozhongyi@cmss.chinamobile.com>]

On 10/3/19 5:23 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Le 03/10/2019 à 09:17, maozy a écrit :
>> Hi,  Laurent
>>
>> On 10/1/19 11:46 PM, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>>> Le 11/09/2019 à 05:31, Mao Zhongyi a écrit :
>>>> if stress function always return 0, the path
>>>> 'if (stress(ramsizeGB, ncpus) < 0)' is nerver unreachable,
>>>> so fix it to allow the test failed.
>>>>
>>>> Cc: armbru@redhat.com
>>>> Cc: laurent@vivier.eu
>>>> Cc: tony.nguyen@bt.com
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Mao Zhongyi <maozhongyi@cmss.chinamobile.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>    tests/migration/stress.c | 5 ++---
>>>>    1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tests/migration/stress.c b/tests/migration/stress.c
>>>> index 19a6eff5fd..35903d90c4 100644
>>>> --- a/tests/migration/stress.c
>>>> +++ b/tests/migration/stress.c
>>>> @@ -224,6 +224,7 @@ static int stressone(unsigned long long ramsizeMB)
>>>>                }
>>>>            }
>>>>        }
>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>    }
>>> before the return, we have an infinite loop "while(1) { }".
>>>
>>> So this part is dead code.
>>>
>>> In fact, if the function exits, it's because it fails, otherwise it
>>> loops infinitely, so I think we should change its type to void and
>>> stress should always return -1.
>> Yes, I think it's ok to change stressone typo to void because
>> no one cares about its return value, but if make stress always
>> return -1, main will always exited in exit_failure, like this:
>>
>> ...
>>      if (stress(ramsizeGB, ncpus) < 0)
>>          exit_failure();
>>
>>      exit_success();
>> }
>>
>> so, perhaps also change stress typo to void may be good. then:
>>
>> ...
>>      stress(ramsizeGB, ncpus);
>>
>>      exit_success();
>> }
>>
>> Anther way , make stressone return 0 when infinite loop fails to
>> exit, then main can handle both success and failure case.
>>
>> what do you think?
>>
> 
> If stressone() or stress() exits it's because of a failure because the
> test runs forever otherwise.
> 
> So I think there is no problem to use exit_failure() as the exit
> function of main(): it should never be reached if the test runs without
> error.

OK, I see, thanks a lot.

> 
> Thanks,
> Laurent
>