From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752193AbbCZLbS (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:31:18 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39767 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751498AbbCZLbR (ORCPT ); Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:31:17 -0400 Message-ID: <5513EE03.1020507@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:31:15 -0400 From: Prarit Bhargava User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131028 Thunderbird/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Stultz CC: lkml , Shuah Khan , Thomas Gleixner , Richard Cochran Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kselftests: timers: Make set-timer-lat fail more gracefully for !CAP_WAKE_ALARM References: <1427327073-19011-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> In-Reply-To: <1427327073-19011-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/25/2015 07:44 PM, John Stultz wrote: > The set-timer-lat test fails when testing CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM > or CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM when the user isn't running as root or > with CAP_WAKE_ALARM. > > So this patch improves the error checking so we report the > issue more clearly and continue rather then reporting a failure. > > Cc: Shuah Khan > Cc: Prarit Bhargava > Cc: Thomas Gleixner > Cc: Richard Cochran > Signed-off-by: John Stultz > Signed-off-by: John Stultz > --- > tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c > index 3ea2eff..dbc9537c 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c > @@ -139,6 +139,13 @@ int do_timer(int clock_id, int flags) > > err = timer_create(clock_id, &se, &tm1); > if (err) { > + if ((clock_id == CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM) > + || (clock_id == CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM)) { I dunno of there is actually a CodingStyle rule for this, but I've always seen this written with the operator on the first line: if ((clock_id == CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM) || (clock_id == CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM)) { > + printf("%-22s %s missing CAP_WAKE_ALARM? : [UNSUPPORTED]\n", > + clockstring(clock_id), > + flags ? "ABSTIME":"RELTIME"); Something to think about: Do you want to write these tests to be more human readable or machine readable? In theory with awk I guess it doesn't matter too much, however, it is something that we should think about moving forward. P.