From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1SMIBy-0002VH-IR for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:16:30 +0000 Received: from mail-bk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1SMIBt-0000IM-1k for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 12:16:30 +0000 Received: by bkcjk7 with SMTP id jk7so3697129bkc.34 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2012 05:16:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4F953947.5060204@casparzhang.com> Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2012 19:13:11 +0800 From: Caspar Zhang MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F952FBC.7040000@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F952FBC.7040000@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] syscalls/cma: add errno tests List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Jan Stancek Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net, Jeffrey Burke On 04/23/2012 06:32 PM, Jan Stancek wrote: > Based on proposed man page: > http://ozlabs.org/~cyeoh/cma/process_vm_readv.txt > > Signed-off-by: Jan Stancek > --- > testcases/kernel/syscalls/cma/cma01.c | 434 ++++++++++++++++++++ > .../kernel/syscalls/cma/process_vm_readv/Makefile | 7 + > .../kernel/syscalls/cma/process_vm_writev/Makefile | 7 + [snip] > +static void cma_test_params_read(struct process_vm_params *params) > +{ > +#if (HAVE_PROCESS_VM_READV==1) > + TEST(process_vm_readv(params->pid, > + params->lvec, params->liovcnt, > + params->rvec, params->riovcnt, > + params->flags)); > +#elif defined(__NR_process_vm_readv) > + TEST(syscall(__NR_process_vm_readv, params->pid, > + params->lvec, params->liovcnt, > + params->rvec, params->riovcnt, > + params->flags)); > +#else > + tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "process_vm_readv does not exist on" > + " your system"); > +#endif omit other parts since looking good to me. Still the question left for open-discussion: isn't syscall-only testing enough, do we need to test glibc wrapper in higher priority? Thanks, Caspar > +} > + > +static void cma_test_params_write(struct process_vm_params *params) > +{ > +#if (HAVE_PROCESS_VM_WRITEV==1) > + TEST(process_vm_writev(params->pid, > + params->lvec, params->liovcnt, > + params->rvec, params->riovcnt, > + params->flags)); > +#elif defined(__NR_process_vm_writev) > + TEST(syscall(__NR_process_vm_writev, params->pid, > + params->lvec, params->liovcnt, > + params->rvec, params->riovcnt, > + params->flags)); > +#else > + tst_brkm(TCONF, cleanup, "process_vm_writev does not exist on" > + " your system"); > +#endif > +} [snip] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Developers, A Lot Can Happen In A Second. Boundary is the first to Know...and Tell You. Monitor Your Applications in Ultra-Fine Resolution. Try it FREE! http://p.sf.net/sfu/Boundary-d2dvs2 _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list