* [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
@ 2021-07-12 7:52 Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-12 7:52 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: " Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-12 8:28 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: " Li Wang
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Kodanev @ 2021-07-12 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
It's unlikely, but still possible that some of them could be
created/released during the test as well, so the patch only
checks errno.
Signed-off-by: Alexey Kodanev <aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>
---
v2: * Move the loop to the test run function and try to get
ENOSPC errno there.
* Rename queues* to segments*
.../kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c | 42 ++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 20 deletions(-)
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
index efbc465e1..5dc5d55fd 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
@@ -21,47 +21,49 @@
#include "tst_safe_sysv_ipc.h"
#include "libnewipc.h"
-static int *queues;
-static int maxshms, queue_cnt;
+static int *segments;
+static int maxshms, segments_cnt;
static key_t shmkey;
static void verify_shmget(void)
{
- TST_EXP_FAIL2(shmget(shmkey + maxshms, SHM_SIZE, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL | SHM_RW), ENOSPC,
- "shmget(%i, %i, %i)", shmkey + maxshms, SHM_SIZE, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL | SHM_RW);
+ int res = 0, num;
+
+ errno = 0;
+ for (num = 0; num <= maxshms; ++num) {
+ res = shmget(shmkey + num, SHM_SIZE, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL | SHM_RW);
+ if (res == -1)
+ break;
+ segments[segments_cnt++] = res;
+ }
+
+ if (res != -1 || errno != ENOSPC)
+ tst_brk(TFAIL | TERRNO, "Failed to trigger ENOSPC error");
+
+ tst_res(TPASS, "Maximum number of segments reached (%d), used by test %d",
+ maxshms, segments_cnt);
}
static void setup(void)
{
- int res, num;
-
shmkey = GETIPCKEY();
SAFE_FILE_SCANF("/proc/sys/kernel/shmmni", "%i", &maxshms);
- queues = SAFE_MALLOC(maxshms * sizeof(int));
- for (num = 0; num < maxshms; num++) {
- res = shmget(shmkey + num, SHM_SIZE, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL | SHM_RW);
- if (res == -1)
- tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "shmget failed unexpectedly");
-
- queues[queue_cnt++] = res;
- }
- tst_res(TINFO, "The maximum number of memory segments (%d) has been reached",
- maxshms);
+ segments = SAFE_MALLOC((maxshms + 1) * sizeof(int));
}
static void cleanup(void)
{
int num;
- if (!queues)
+ if (!segments)
return;
- for (num = 0; num < queue_cnt; num++)
- SAFE_SHMCTL(queues[num], IPC_RMID, NULL);
+ for (num = 0; num < segments_cnt; num++)
+ SAFE_SHMCTL(segments[num], IPC_RMID, NULL);
- free(queues);
+ free(segments);
}
static struct tst_test test = {
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-12 7:52 [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: don't depend on existed shared resources Alexey Kodanev
@ 2021-07-12 7:52 ` Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-22 7:55 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-12 8:28 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: " Li Wang
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Kodanev @ 2021-07-12 7:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
It's unlikely, but still possible that some of them could be
created/released during the test as well, so the patch only
checks errno.
Signed-off-by: Alexey Kodanev <aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>
---
v2: * Move the loop to the test run function and try to get
ENOSPC errno there.
.../kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c | 31 ++++++++++---------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
index 76cf82cd3..1ade8f942 100644
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
@@ -26,29 +26,30 @@ static key_t msgkey;
static void verify_msgget(void)
{
- TST_EXP_FAIL2(msgget(msgkey + maxmsgs, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL), ENOSPC,
- "msgget(%i, %i)", msgkey + maxmsgs, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL);
+ int res = 0, num;
+
+ errno = 0;
+ for (num = 0; num <= maxmsgs; ++num) {
+ res = msgget(msgkey + num, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL);
+ if (res == -1)
+ break;
+ queues[queue_cnt++] = res;
+ }
+
+ if (res != -1 || errno != ENOSPC)
+ tst_brk(TFAIL | TERRNO, "Failed to trigger ENOSPC error");
+
+ tst_res(TPASS, "Maximum number of queues reached (%d), used by test %d",
+ maxmsgs, queue_cnt);
}
static void setup(void)
{
- int res, num;
-
msgkey = GETIPCKEY();
SAFE_FILE_SCANF("/proc/sys/kernel/msgmni", "%i", &maxmsgs);
- queues = SAFE_MALLOC(maxmsgs * sizeof(int));
-
- for (num = 0; num < maxmsgs; num++) {
- res = msgget(msgkey + num, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL);
- if (res == -1)
- tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "msgget failed unexpectedly");
- queues[queue_cnt++] = res;
- }
-
- tst_res(TINFO, "The maximum number of message queues (%d) reached",
- maxmsgs);
+ queues = SAFE_MALLOC((maxmsgs + 1) * sizeof(int));
}
static void cleanup(void)
--
2.25.1
^ permalink raw reply related [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-12 7:52 [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: don't depend on existed shared resources Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-12 7:52 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: " Alexey Kodanev
@ 2021-07-12 8:28 ` Li Wang
2021-07-12 8:37 ` Alexey Kodanev
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Li Wang @ 2021-07-12 8:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:54 PM Alexey Kodanev <aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>
wrote:
> It's unlikely, but still possible that some of them could be
> created/released during the test as well, so the patch only
> checks errno.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kodanev <aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>
> ---
> v2: * Move the loop to the test run function and try to get
> ENOSPC errno there.
>
I'm fine to go with this but move the loop to test run without any
limit will bring new fail if running with parameter '-i 2'.
We have to handle that situation (maybe add a judgment to skip
test for run more times) in case someone uses it like:
# ./shmget03 -i 2
tst_test.c:1344: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
shmget03.c:44: TPASS: Maximum number of segments reached (4096), used by
test 4096
shmget03.c:41: TFAIL: Failed to trigger ENOSPC error: EEXIST (17)
--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20210712/20653694/attachment.htm>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-12 8:28 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: " Li Wang
@ 2021-07-12 8:37 ` Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-12 8:42 ` Li Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Alexey Kodanev @ 2021-07-12 8:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On 12.07.2021 11:28, Li Wang wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:54 PM Alexey Kodanev <aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com <mailto:aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>> wrote:
>
> It's unlikely, but still possible that some of them could be
> created/released during the test as well, so the patch only
> checks errno.
>
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kodanev <aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com <mailto:aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>>
> ---
> v2: * Move the loop to the test run function and try to get
> ? ? ? ENOSPC errno there.
>
>
> I'm fine to go with this but move?the loop to test run without any
> limit will bring new fail if running with parameter '-i 2'.
>
> We have to handle that situation (maybe add a judgment to skip
> test for run?more times) in case someone uses it like:
Or just release them asap after tpass?
>
> # ./shmget03 -i 2
> tst_test.c:1344: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> shmget03.c:44: TPASS: Maximum number of segments reached (4096), used by test 4096
> shmget03.c:41: TFAIL: Failed to trigger ENOSPC error: EEXIST (17)
>
> --
> Regards,
> Li Wang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-12 8:37 ` Alexey Kodanev
@ 2021-07-12 8:42 ` Li Wang
2021-07-12 8:55 ` Li Wang
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Li Wang @ 2021-07-12 8:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 4:37 PM Alexey Kodanev <aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>
wrote:
> On 12.07.2021 11:28, Li Wang wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:54 PM Alexey Kodanev <
> aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com <mailto:aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>> wrote:
> >
> > It's unlikely, but still possible that some of them could be
> > created/released during the test as well, so the patch only
> > checks errno.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Kodanev <aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com <mailto:
> aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>>
> > ---
> > v2: * Move the loop to the test run function and try to get
> > ENOSPC errno there.
> >
> >
> > I'm fine to go with this but move the loop to test run without any
> > limit will bring new fail if running with parameter '-i 2'.
> >
> > We have to handle that situation (maybe add a judgment to skip
> > test for run more times) in case someone uses it like:
>
> Or just release them asap after tpass?
Sure, but looks a bit redundant.
Or we can just adding a global varible for saving num:
--- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
+++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
@@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
#include "libnewipc.h"
static int *segments;
-static int maxshms, segments_cnt;
+static int number = 0, maxshms, segments_cnt;
static key_t shmkey;
static void verify_shmget(void)
@@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static void verify_shmget(void)
int res = 0, num;
errno = 0;
- for (num = 0; num <= maxshms; ++num) {
+ for (num = number; num <= maxshms; ++num) {
res = shmget(shmkey + num, SHM_SIZE, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL |
SHM_RW);
if (res == -1)
break;
@@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ static void verify_shmget(void)
tst_res(TPASS, "Maximum number of segments reached (%d), used by
test %d",
maxshms, segments_cnt);
+
+ number = num;
}
static void setup(void)
--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20210712/22e4fe29/attachment.htm>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-12 8:42 ` Li Wang
@ 2021-07-12 8:55 ` Li Wang
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Li Wang @ 2021-07-12 8:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 4:42 PM Li Wang <liwang@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 4:37 PM Alexey Kodanev <
> aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12.07.2021 11:28, Li Wang wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Jul 12, 2021 at 3:54 PM Alexey Kodanev <
>> aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com <mailto:aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> > It's unlikely, but still possible that some of them could be
>> > created/released during the test as well, so the patch only
>> > checks errno.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Alexey Kodanev <aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com <mailto:
>> aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>>
>> > ---
>> > v2: * Move the loop to the test run function and try to get
>> > ENOSPC errno there.
>> >
>> >
>> > I'm fine to go with this but move the loop to test run without any
>> > limit will bring new fail if running with parameter '-i 2'.
>> >
>> > We have to handle that situation (maybe add a judgment to skip
>> > test for run more times) in case someone uses it like:
>>
>> Or just release them asap after tpass?
>
>
> Sure, but looks a bit redundant.
>
> Or we can just adding a global varible for saving num:
>
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
> #include "libnewipc.h"
>
> static int *segments;
> -static int maxshms, segments_cnt;
> +static int number = 0, maxshms, segments_cnt;
> static key_t shmkey;
>
> static void verify_shmget(void)
> @@ -30,7 +30,7 @@ static void verify_shmget(void)
> int res = 0, num;
>
> errno = 0;
> - for (num = 0; num <= maxshms; ++num) {
> + for (num = number; num <= maxshms; ++num) {
>
Oh, this method is thoughtless, because if the test gets ENOSPC at
the last looping time, which means num == maxshms, then the global
number will be larger than maxshms, so the test won't fall into
for() loop next time and report FAIL again.
So, let's go with your way: release them after TPASS. This is safer.
> res = shmget(shmkey + num, SHM_SIZE, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL
> | SHM_RW);
> if (res == -1)
> break;
> @@ -42,6 +42,8 @@ static void verify_shmget(void)
>
> tst_res(TPASS, "Maximum number of segments reached (%d), used by
> test %d",
> maxshms, segments_cnt);
> +
> + number = num;
> }
>
> static void setup(void)
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Li Wang
>
--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20210712/fa877490/attachment-0001.htm>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-12 7:52 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: " Alexey Kodanev
@ 2021-07-22 7:55 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-22 12:14 ` Cyril Hrubis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2021-07-22 7:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Alexey, Li,
> It's unlikely, but still possible that some of them could be
> created/released during the test as well, so the patch only
> checks errno.
> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kodanev <aleksei.kodanev@bell-sw.com>
> ---
> v2: * Move the loop to the test run function and try to get
> ENOSPC errno there.
> .../kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c | 31 ++++++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
> index 76cf82cd3..1ade8f942 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
> @@ -26,29 +26,30 @@ static key_t msgkey;
> static void verify_msgget(void)
> {
> - TST_EXP_FAIL2(msgget(msgkey + maxmsgs, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL), ENOSPC,
> - "msgget(%i, %i)", msgkey + maxmsgs, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL);
> + int res = 0, num;
> +
> + errno = 0;
> + for (num = 0; num <= maxmsgs; ++num) {
In different patch [1] (I forget you already send patches to fix this) I counted
items in /proc/sysvipc/shm. Not sure what is safer: <= looks a bit drastic
(how about bug which reports ENOSPC much earlier than it should be?), but
obviously new mapping from other program created in the middle of testing.
Kind regards,
Petr
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20210722073523.5099-1-pvorel@suse.cz/
> + res = msgget(msgkey + num, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL);
> + if (res == -1)
> + break;
> + queues[queue_cnt++] = res;
> + }
> +
> + if (res != -1 || errno != ENOSPC)
> + tst_brk(TFAIL | TERRNO, "Failed to trigger ENOSPC error");
> +
> + tst_res(TPASS, "Maximum number of queues reached (%d), used by test %d",
> + maxmsgs, queue_cnt);
> }
...
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-22 7:55 ` Petr Vorel
@ 2021-07-22 12:14 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-07-22 13:01 ` Petr Vorel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Cyril Hrubis @ 2021-07-22 12:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi!
> In different patch [1] (I forget you already send patches to fix this) I counted
> items in /proc/sysvipc/shm. Not sure what is safer: <= looks a bit drastic
> (how about bug which reports ENOSPC much earlier than it should be?), but
> obviously new mapping from other program created in the middle of testing.
I think that we allready discussed this in another thread:
https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023831.html
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-22 12:14 ` Cyril Hrubis
@ 2021-07-22 13:01 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-22 13:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2021-07-22 13:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
> Hi!
> > In different patch [1] (I forget you already send patches to fix this) I counted
> > items in /proc/sysvipc/shm. Not sure what is safer: <= looks a bit drastic
> > (how about bug which reports ENOSPC much earlier than it should be?), but
> > obviously new mapping from other program created in the middle of testing.
> I think that we allready discussed this in another thread:
> https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023831.html
Thanks, I forgot this. In that case my approach (not using <=, but count
segments in /proc/sysvipc/shm before testing) might be more precise.
But no strong feeling about that, both solutions fix the test, let's chose one
and merge.
Kind regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-22 13:01 ` Petr Vorel
@ 2021-07-22 13:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-07-23 8:46 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-07-23 12:11 ` Petr Vorel
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Cyril Hrubis @ 2021-07-22 13:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi!
> > I think that we allready discussed this in another thread:
>
> > https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023831.html
>
> Thanks, I forgot this. In that case my approach (not using <=, but count
> segments in /proc/sysvipc/shm before testing) might be more precise.
> But no strong feeling about that, both solutions fix the test, let's chose one
> and merge.
As I said previously, there are many SysV IPC tests that do expect that
nobody will add/remove IPC shm/queue/semaphores during the testrun and
some of the testcases cannot even be implemented without this
expectation.
Hence I wouldn't complicate the test here and just count how many
segments are there at the start and be done with it.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-22 13:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
@ 2021-07-23 8:46 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-07-23 12:24 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-23 12:11 ` Petr Vorel
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: xuyang2018.jy @ 2021-07-23 8:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Cyril, Petr
> Hi!
>>> I think that we allready discussed this in another thread:
>>
>>> https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023831.html
>>
>> Thanks, I forgot this. In that case my approach (not using<=, but count
>> segments in /proc/sysvipc/shm before testing) might be more precise.
>> But no strong feeling about that, both solutions fix the test, let's chose one
>> and merge.
>
> As I said previously, there are many SysV IPC tests that do expect that
> nobody will add/remove IPC shm/queue/semaphores during the testrun and
> some of the testcases cannot even be implemented without this
> expectation.
>
> Hence I wouldn't complicate the test here and just count how many
> segments are there at the start and be done with it.
Agree.
A possible solution(alter get_used_queues api in new ipc lib and add
file parametrers, so we can use this api for msgget03) I have mentioned
in the previous email, the url as below:
https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023653.html
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-22 13:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-07-23 8:46 ` xuyang2018.jy
@ 2021-07-23 12:11 ` Petr Vorel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2021-07-23 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Cyril, all,
> Hi!
> > > I think that we allready discussed this in another thread:
> > > https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023831.html
> > Thanks, I forgot this. In that case my approach (not using <=, but count
> > segments in /proc/sysvipc/shm before testing) might be more precise.
> > But no strong feeling about that, both solutions fix the test, let's chose one
> > and merge.
> As I said previously, there are many SysV IPC tests that do expect that
> nobody will add/remove IPC shm/queue/semaphores during the testrun and
> some of the testcases cannot even be implemented without this
> expectation.
> Hence I wouldn't complicate the test here and just count how many
> segments are there at the start and be done with it.
Yes, that's what's done in "my approach" [1].
Kind regards,
Petr
[1] https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/project/ltp/patch/20210722073523.5099-1-pvorel@suse.cz/
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-23 8:46 ` xuyang2018.jy
@ 2021-07-23 12:24 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-27 5:51 ` xuyang2018.jy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2021-07-23 12:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi all,
> Hi Cyril, Petr
> > Hi!
> >>> I think that we allready discussed this in another thread:
> >>> https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023831.html
> >> Thanks, I forgot this. In that case my approach (not using<=, but count
> >> segments in /proc/sysvipc/shm before testing) might be more precise.
> >> But no strong feeling about that, both solutions fix the test, let's chose one
> >> and merge.
> > As I said previously, there are many SysV IPC tests that do expect that
> > nobody will add/remove IPC shm/queue/semaphores during the testrun and
> > some of the testcases cannot even be implemented without this
> > expectation.
> > Hence I wouldn't complicate the test here and just count how many
> > segments are there at the start and be done with it.
> Agree.
> A possible solution(alter get_used_queues api in new ipc lib and add
> file parametrers, so we can use this api for msgget03) I have mentioned
> in the previous email, the url as below:
> https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023653.html
LGTM. Or use /proc/sysvipc/shm instead of /proc/sysvipc/msg in get_used_queues()
as you noted get_used_queues() has not been used yet.
BTW searching where get_used_queues() appeared, I see [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/4]
syscalls/ipc: add newipc library for new API [1], but if I'm not mistaken
get_used_queues() was not used even there, maybe it was in some previous
versions.
Kind regards,
Petr
[1] https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2016-December/003239.html
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-23 12:24 ` Petr Vorel
@ 2021-07-27 5:51 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-08-04 1:45 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-08-04 14:48 ` Cyril Hrubis
0 siblings, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: xuyang2018.jy @ 2021-07-27 5:51 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Petr
> Hi all,
>
>> Hi Cyril, Petr
>>> Hi!
>>>>> I think that we allready discussed this in another thread:
>
>>>>> https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023831.html
>
>>>> Thanks, I forgot this. In that case my approach (not using<=, but count
>>>> segments in /proc/sysvipc/shm before testing) might be more precise.
>>>> But no strong feeling about that, both solutions fix the test, let's chose one
>>>> and merge.
>
>>> As I said previously, there are many SysV IPC tests that do expect that
>>> nobody will add/remove IPC shm/queue/semaphores during the testrun and
>>> some of the testcases cannot even be implemented without this
>>> expectation.
>
>>> Hence I wouldn't complicate the test here and just count how many
>>> segments are there at the start and be done with it.
>> Agree.
>
>> A possible solution(alter get_used_queues api in new ipc lib and add
>> file parametrers, so we can use this api for msgget03) I have mentioned
>> in the previous email, the url as below:
>> https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023653.html
> LGTM. Or use /proc/sysvipc/shm instead of /proc/sysvipc/msg in get_used_queues()
> as you noted get_used_queues() has not been used yet.
I rename get_used_queues to get_used_sysvipc_cnt. see attached patch.
>
> BTW searching where get_used_queues() appeared, I see [LTP] [PATCH v3 1/4]
> syscalls/ipc: add newipc library for new API [1], but if I'm not mistaken
> get_used_queues() was not used even there, maybe it was in some previous
> versions.
Yes, no new api case use GET_USED_QUEUES api.
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
> [1] https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2016-December/003239.html
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: 0001-libs-libnewipc-Rename-get_used_queues-as-get_used_sy.patch
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20210727/401bfffc/attachment.ksh>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-27 5:51 ` xuyang2018.jy
@ 2021-08-04 1:45 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-08-04 14:48 ` Cyril Hrubis
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: xuyang2018.jy @ 2021-08-04 1:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Cyril, Petr
> Hi Petr
>> Hi all,
>>
>>> Hi Cyril, Petr
>>>> Hi!
>>>>>> I think that we allready discussed this in another thread:
>>
>>>>>> https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023831.html
>>
>>>>> Thanks, I forgot this. In that case my approach (not using<=, but
>>>>> count
>>>>> segments in /proc/sysvipc/shm before testing) might be more precise.
>>>>> But no strong feeling about that, both solutions fix the test,
>>>>> let's chose one
>>>>> and merge.
>>
>>>> As I said previously, there are many SysV IPC tests that do expect that
>>>> nobody will add/remove IPC shm/queue/semaphores during the testrun and
>>>> some of the testcases cannot even be implemented without this
>>>> expectation.
>>
>>>> Hence I wouldn't complicate the test here and just count how many
>>>> segments are there at the start and be done with it.
>>> Agree.
>>
>>> A possible solution(alter get_used_queues api in new ipc lib and add
>>> file parametrers, so we can use this api for msgget03) I have mentioned
>>> in the previous email, the url as below:
>>> https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2021-July/023653.html
>> LGTM. Or use /proc/sysvipc/shm instead of /proc/sysvipc/msg in
>> get_used_queues()
>> as you noted get_used_queues() has not been used yet.
> I rename get_used_queues to get_used_sysvipc_cnt. see attached patch.
Any idea about the attached patch(it was in previous eamil)?
ps:more and more people sent patch to fix this problme, I don't want to
see many patches for this problem. Let's choose a solution to fix this
problem.
Best Regards
Yang Xu
>>
>> BTW searching where get_used_queues() appeared, I see [LTP] [PATCH v3
>> 1/4]
>> syscalls/ipc: add newipc library for new API [1], but if I'm not mistaken
>> get_used_queues() was not used even there, maybe it was in some previous
>> versions.
> Yes, no new api case use GET_USED_QUEUES api.
>>
>> Kind regards,
>> Petr
>>
>> [1] https://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2016-December/003239.html
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-07-27 5:51 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-08-04 1:45 ` xuyang2018.jy
@ 2021-08-04 14:48 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-08-04 15:45 ` Petr Vorel
2021-08-05 3:43 ` xuyang2018.jy
1 sibling, 2 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Cyril Hrubis @ 2021-08-04 14:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi!
> From 2772f8f0bbc1526389cb2090895dded41e2c43dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:22:42 +0800
> Subject: [PATCH] libs/libnewipc:Rename get_used_queues as get_used_sysvipc_cnt
>
> Rename get_used_queues as get_used_sysvipc_cnt, so we can use GET_USED_QUEQUES()
> and GET_USED_SEGMENTS() to get the corresponding used sysvipc resource total.
>
> Then we can use them in shmget03/msgget03, so we can trigger the ENOSPC error correctly
> even current environment has consume some sysvipc resource.
>
> I don't use this api in verify function since we don't support run cases in parallel and
> we should assume this situation that this case is the only case to use(free or alloc) sysv
> ipc resource at that time.
>
> Fixes: #842
> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu <xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
> ---
> include/libnewipc.h | 6 ++++--
> libs/libltpnewipc/libnewipc.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c | 10 +++++++---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c | 10 ++++++----
> 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/include/libnewipc.h b/include/libnewipc.h
> index 075364f85..b0448841a 100644
> --- a/include/libnewipc.h
> +++ b/include/libnewipc.h
> @@ -49,9 +49,11 @@ key_t getipckey(const char *file, const int lineno);
> #define GETIPCKEY() \
> getipckey(__FILE__, __LINE__)
>
> -int get_used_queues(const char *file, const int lineno);
> +int get_used_sysvipc_cnt(const char *file, const int lineno, const char *sysvipc_file);
> #define GET_USED_QUEUES() \
> - get_used_queues(__FILE__, __LINE__)
> + get_used_sysvipc_cnt(__FILE__, __LINE__, "/proc/sysvipc/msg")
> +#define GET_USED_SEGMENTS() \
> + get_used_sysvipc_cnt(__FILE__, __LINE__, "/proc/sysvipc/shm")
I would just call it get_used_sysvipc()
> void *probe_free_addr(const char *file, const int lineno);
> #define PROBE_FREE_ADDR() \
> diff --git a/libs/libltpnewipc/libnewipc.c b/libs/libltpnewipc/libnewipc.c
> index d0974bbe0..687a907e7 100644
> --- a/libs/libltpnewipc/libnewipc.c
> +++ b/libs/libltpnewipc/libnewipc.c
> @@ -48,25 +48,25 @@ key_t getipckey(const char *file, const int lineno)
> return key;
> }
>
> -int get_used_queues(const char *file, const int lineno)
> +int get_used_sysvipc_cnt(const char *file, const int lineno, const char *sysvipc_file)
> {
> FILE *fp;
> - int used_queues = -1;
> + int used_cnt = -1;
And here as well the _cnt is not adding any value over I would say.
> char buf[BUFSIZE];
>
> - fp = safe_fopen(file, lineno, NULL, "/proc/sysvipc/msg", "r");
> + fp = safe_fopen(file, lineno, NULL, sysvipc_file, "r");
>
> while (fgets(buf, BUFSIZE, fp) != NULL)
> - used_queues++;
> + used_cnt++;
>
> fclose(fp);
>
> - if (used_queues < 0) {
> - tst_brk(TBROK, "can't read /proc/sysvipc/msg to get "
> - "used message queues at %s:%d", file, lineno);
> + if (used_cnt < 0) {
> + tst_brk(TBROK, "can't read %s to get used message queues "
> + "at %s:%d", sysvipc_file, file, lineno);
> }
>
> - return used_queues;
> + return used_cnt;
> }
>
> void *probe_free_addr(const char *file, const int lineno)
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
> index ab5714cdc..8ccffc547 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
> #include "tst_safe_sysv_ipc.h"
> #include "libnewipc.h"
>
> -static int maxmsgs, queue_cnt;
> +static int maxmsgs, queue_cnt, existed_cnt;
^
Why not 'used_cnt' ?
> static int *queues;
> static key_t msgkey;
>
> @@ -37,11 +37,15 @@ static void setup(void)
>
> msgkey = GETIPCKEY();
>
> + existed_cnt = GET_USED_QUEUES();
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Current environment %d message queues are already in use",
> + existed_cnt);
> +
> SAFE_FILE_SCANF("/proc/sys/kernel/msgmni", "%i", &maxmsgs);
>
> - queues = SAFE_MALLOC(maxmsgs * sizeof(int));
> + queues = SAFE_MALLOC((maxmsgs - existed_cnt) * sizeof(int));
>
> - for (num = 0; num < maxmsgs; num++) {
> + for (num = 0; num < maxmsgs - existed_cnt; num++) {
> res = msgget(msgkey + num, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL);
> if (res == -1)
> tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "msgget failed unexpectedly");
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
> index efbc465e1..acd352796 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
> #include "libnewipc.h"
>
> static int *queues;
> -static int maxshms, queue_cnt;
> +static int maxshms, queue_cnt, existed_cnt;
^
Here as well.
> static key_t shmkey;
>
> static void verify_shmget(void)
> @@ -36,11 +36,13 @@ static void setup(void)
> int res, num;
>
> shmkey = GETIPCKEY();
> -
> + existed_cnt = GET_USED_SEGMENTS();
> + tst_res(TINFO, "Current environment %d shared memory segments are already in use",
> + existed_cnt);
> SAFE_FILE_SCANF("/proc/sys/kernel/shmmni", "%i", &maxshms);
>
> - queues = SAFE_MALLOC(maxshms * sizeof(int));
> - for (num = 0; num < maxshms; num++) {
> + queues = SAFE_MALLOC((maxshms - existed_cnt) * sizeof(int));
> + for (num = 0; num < maxshms - existed_cnt; num++) {
> res = shmget(shmkey + num, SHM_SIZE, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL | SHM_RW);
> if (res == -1)
> tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "shmget failed unexpectedly");
Other than the very minor differencies I would do in naming the
variables and function this looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-08-04 14:48 ` Cyril Hrubis
@ 2021-08-04 15:45 ` Petr Vorel
2021-08-05 3:43 ` xuyang2018.jy
1 sibling, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2021-08-04 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Xu, Cyril,
> Other than the very minor differencies I would do in naming the
> variables and function this looks good to me.
Agree with all Cyril's suggestions for rename.
Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
I suppose you just merge it fixed version, right?
Because now we discuss under Alexey's "[v2,2/2] msgget03: don't depend on
existed shared resources" patch.
Kind regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-08-04 14:48 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-08-04 15:45 ` Petr Vorel
@ 2021-08-05 3:43 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-08-05 6:36 ` Petr Vorel
1 sibling, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: xuyang2018.jy @ 2021-08-05 3:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Cyril, Petr
> Hi!
>> From 2772f8f0bbc1526389cb2090895dded41e2c43dc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
>> Date: Tue, 27 Jul 2021 16:22:42 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH] libs/libnewipc:Rename get_used_queues as get_used_sysvipc_cnt
>>
>> Rename get_used_queues as get_used_sysvipc_cnt, so we can use GET_USED_QUEQUES()
>> and GET_USED_SEGMENTS() to get the corresponding used sysvipc resource total.
>>
>> Then we can use them in shmget03/msgget03, so we can trigger the ENOSPC error correctly
>> even current environment has consume some sysvipc resource.
>>
>> I don't use this api in verify function since we don't support run cases in parallel and
>> we should assume this situation that this case is the only case to use(free or alloc) sysv
>> ipc resource at that time.
>>
>> Fixes: #842
>> Signed-off-by: Yang Xu<xuyang2018.jy@fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>> include/libnewipc.h | 6 ++++--
>> libs/libltpnewipc/libnewipc.c | 16 ++++++++--------
>> testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c | 10 +++++++---
>> testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c | 10 ++++++----
>> 4 files changed, 25 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/include/libnewipc.h b/include/libnewipc.h
>> index 075364f85..b0448841a 100644
>> --- a/include/libnewipc.h
>> +++ b/include/libnewipc.h
>> @@ -49,9 +49,11 @@ key_t getipckey(const char *file, const int lineno);
>> #define GETIPCKEY() \
>> getipckey(__FILE__, __LINE__)
>>
>> -int get_used_queues(const char *file, const int lineno);
>> +int get_used_sysvipc_cnt(const char *file, const int lineno, const char *sysvipc_file);
>> #define GET_USED_QUEUES() \
>> - get_used_queues(__FILE__, __LINE__)
>> + get_used_sysvipc_cnt(__FILE__, __LINE__, "/proc/sysvipc/msg")
>> +#define GET_USED_SEGMENTS() \
>> + get_used_sysvipc_cnt(__FILE__, __LINE__, "/proc/sysvipc/shm")
>
> I would just call it get_used_sysvipc()
OK.
>
>> void *probe_free_addr(const char *file, const int lineno);
>> #define PROBE_FREE_ADDR() \
>> diff --git a/libs/libltpnewipc/libnewipc.c b/libs/libltpnewipc/libnewipc.c
>> index d0974bbe0..687a907e7 100644
>> --- a/libs/libltpnewipc/libnewipc.c
>> +++ b/libs/libltpnewipc/libnewipc.c
>> @@ -48,25 +48,25 @@ key_t getipckey(const char *file, const int lineno)
>> return key;
>> }
>>
>> -int get_used_queues(const char *file, const int lineno)
>> +int get_used_sysvipc_cnt(const char *file, const int lineno, const char *sysvipc_file)
>> {
>> FILE *fp;
>> - int used_queues = -1;
>> + int used_cnt = -1;
>
> And here as well the _cnt is not adding any value over I would say.
OK.
>
>> char buf[BUFSIZE];
>>
>> - fp = safe_fopen(file, lineno, NULL, "/proc/sysvipc/msg", "r");
>> + fp = safe_fopen(file, lineno, NULL, sysvipc_file, "r");
>>
>> while (fgets(buf, BUFSIZE, fp) != NULL)
>> - used_queues++;
>> + used_cnt++;
>>
>> fclose(fp);
>>
>> - if (used_queues< 0) {
>> - tst_brk(TBROK, "can't read /proc/sysvipc/msg to get "
>> - "used message queues at %s:%d", file, lineno);
>> + if (used_cnt< 0) {
>> + tst_brk(TBROK, "can't read %s to get used message queues "
>> + "at %s:%d", sysvipc_file, file, lineno);
>> }
I also modify this info.
message queues => sysvipc resource total
>>
>> - return used_queues;
>> + return used_cnt;
>> }
>>
>> void *probe_free_addr(const char *file, const int lineno)
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
>> index ab5714cdc..8ccffc547 100644
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/msgget/msgget03.c
>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@
>> #include "tst_safe_sysv_ipc.h"
>> #include "libnewipc.h"
>>
>> -static int maxmsgs, queue_cnt;
>> +static int maxmsgs, queue_cnt, existed_cnt;
> ^
> Why not 'used_cnt' ?
Yes.
>> static int *queues;
>> static key_t msgkey;
>>
>> @@ -37,11 +37,15 @@ static void setup(void)
>>
>> msgkey = GETIPCKEY();
>>
>> + existed_cnt = GET_USED_QUEUES();
>> + tst_res(TINFO, "Current environment %d message queues are already in use",
>> + existed_cnt);
>> +
>> SAFE_FILE_SCANF("/proc/sys/kernel/msgmni", "%i",&maxmsgs);
>>
>> - queues = SAFE_MALLOC(maxmsgs * sizeof(int));
>> + queues = SAFE_MALLOC((maxmsgs - existed_cnt) * sizeof(int));
>>
>> - for (num = 0; num< maxmsgs; num++) {
>> + for (num = 0; num< maxmsgs - existed_cnt; num++) {
>> res = msgget(msgkey + num, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL);
>> if (res == -1)
>> tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "msgget failed unexpectedly");
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
>> index efbc465e1..acd352796 100644
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/shmget/shmget03.c
>> @@ -22,7 +22,7 @@
>> #include "libnewipc.h"
>>
>> static int *queues;
>> -static int maxshms, queue_cnt;
>> +static int maxshms, queue_cnt, existed_cnt;
> ^
> Here as well.
OK.
>> static key_t shmkey;
>>
>> static void verify_shmget(void)
>> @@ -36,11 +36,13 @@ static void setup(void)
>> int res, num;
>>
>> shmkey = GETIPCKEY();
>> -
>> + existed_cnt = GET_USED_SEGMENTS();
>> + tst_res(TINFO, "Current environment %d shared memory segments are already in use",
>> + existed_cnt);
>> SAFE_FILE_SCANF("/proc/sys/kernel/shmmni", "%i",&maxshms);
>>
>> - queues = SAFE_MALLOC(maxshms * sizeof(int));
>> - for (num = 0; num< maxshms; num++) {
>> + queues = SAFE_MALLOC((maxshms - existed_cnt) * sizeof(int));
>> + for (num = 0; num< maxshms - existed_cnt; num++) {
>> res = shmget(shmkey + num, SHM_SIZE, IPC_CREAT | IPC_EXCL | SHM_RW);
>> if (res == -1)
>> tst_brk(TBROK | TERRNO, "shmget failed unexpectedly");
>
> Other than the very minor differencies I would do in naming the
> variables and function this looks good to me.
>
> Reviewed-by: Cyril Hrubis<chrubis@suse.cz>
Thanks for your review. I spilt this patch into a patchset because it is
more friendly for user or tester.
Best Regards
Yang Xu
>
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-08-05 3:43 ` xuyang2018.jy
@ 2021-08-05 6:36 ` Petr Vorel
2021-08-05 6:58 ` xuyang2018.jy
0 siblings, 1 reply; 20+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2021-08-05 6:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Xu,
> >> - if (used_queues< 0) {
> >> - tst_brk(TBROK, "can't read /proc/sysvipc/msg to get "
> >> - "used message queues at %s:%d", file, lineno);
> >> + if (used_cnt< 0) {
> >> + tst_brk(TBROK, "can't read %s to get used message queues "
> >> + "at %s:%d", sysvipc_file, file, lineno);
> >> }
> I also modify this info.
> message queues => sysvipc resource total
+1. nit: I'd also move "at" at the previous line (better for grep).
Kind regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: don't depend on existed shared resources
2021-08-05 6:36 ` Petr Vorel
@ 2021-08-05 6:58 ` xuyang2018.jy
0 siblings, 0 replies; 20+ messages in thread
From: xuyang2018.jy @ 2021-08-05 6:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Petr
> Hi Xu,
>
>>>> - if (used_queues< 0) {
>>>> - tst_brk(TBROK, "can't read /proc/sysvipc/msg to get "
>>>> - "used message queues at %s:%d", file, lineno);
>>>> + if (used_cnt< 0) {
>>>> + tst_brk(TBROK, "can't read %s to get used message queues "
>>>> + "at %s:%d", sysvipc_file, file, lineno);
>>>> }
>> I also modify this info.
>> message queues => sysvipc resource total
> +1. nit: I'd also move "at" at the previous line (better for grep).
Sounds reasonable. Thanks.
Best Regards
Yang Xu
>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 20+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-08-05 6:58 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2021-07-12 7:52 [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: don't depend on existed shared resources Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-12 7:52 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] msgget03: " Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-22 7:55 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-22 12:14 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-07-22 13:01 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-22 13:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-07-23 8:46 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-07-23 12:24 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-27 5:51 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-08-04 1:45 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-08-04 14:48 ` Cyril Hrubis
2021-08-04 15:45 ` Petr Vorel
2021-08-05 3:43 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-08-05 6:36 ` Petr Vorel
2021-08-05 6:58 ` xuyang2018.jy
2021-07-23 12:11 ` Petr Vorel
2021-07-12 8:28 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/2] shmget03: " Li Wang
2021-07-12 8:37 ` Alexey Kodanev
2021-07-12 8:42 ` Li Wang
2021-07-12 8:55 ` Li Wang
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.