[LTP] [PATCH] openposix/fork/11-1.c: Clean up temporary file

[LTP] [PATCH] openposix/fork/11-1.c: Clean up temporary file

[zhao gongyi]

We need to clean up temporary file /tmp/fork-11-1-XXXXXX which created by mkstemp.

Signed-off-by: zhao gongyi <zhaogongyi@huawei.com>
---
 .../open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c     | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c
index a43bc274c..e9b18958c 100644
--- a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c
+++ b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c
@@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ int main(void)
 		return result;
 	}

+	unlink(path_template);
+
 	if (fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) == -1) {
 		printf("Could not set initial lock: %s (%d)\n",
 		       strerror(errno), errno);
--
2.17.1

[LTP] [PATCH] openposix/fork/11-1.c: Clean up temporary file

[Li Wang]

Hi Gongyi,

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 1:05 PM zhao gongyi <zhaogongyi@huawei.com> wrote:

> We need to clean up temporary file /tmp/fork-11-1-XXXXXX which created by
> mkstemp.
>
> Signed-off-by: zhao gongyi <zhaogongyi@huawei.com>
> ---
>  .../open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c     | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git
> a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c
> b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c
> index a43bc274c..e9b18958c 100644
> --- a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c
> +++ b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c
> @@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ int main(void)
>                 return result;
>         }
>
> +       unlink(path_template);
>

Why do we need to delete the tempfile before acquiring a lock?
Or did you mean doing this after the testing(in the cleanup phase).

BTW, seems the child report a wrong status of the locked file, while
fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) return -1 and sets errno to EACCES or EAGAIN,
shouldn't that mean the file already been locked by the parent?



> +
>         if (fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) == -1) {
>                 printf("Could not set initial lock: %s (%d)\n",
>                        strerror(errno), errno);
> --
> 2.17.1
>
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
>
>

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20210219/67f68260/attachment-0001.htm>

[LTP] 答复: [PATCH] openposix/fork/11-1.c: Clean up temporary file

[zhaogongyi]

Hi Li,

I think we need to delete the tempfile after the testing(in the cleanup phase).

In this case, we just hope that call unlink after open/mkstemp since unlink would not destroy the inode,

so call unlink before fork would not affect the test?

???: Li Wang [mailto:liwang@redhat.com]
????: 2021?2?19? 15:45
???: zhaogongyi <zhaogongyi@huawei.com>
??: LTP List <ltp@lists.linux.it>
??: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] openposix/fork/11-1.c: Clean up temporary file

Hi Gongyi,

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 1:05 PM zhao gongyi <zhaogongyi@huawei.com<mailto:zhaogongyi@huawei.com>> wrote:
We need to clean up temporary file /tmp/fork-11-1-XXXXXX which created by mkstemp.

Signed-off-by: zhao gongyi <zhaogongyi@huawei.com<mailto:zhaogongyi@huawei.com>>
---
 .../open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c     | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c
index a43bc274c..e9b18958c 100644
--- a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c
+++ b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/fork/11-1.c
@@ -79,6 +79,8 @@ int main(void)
                return result;
        }

+       unlink(path_template);

Why do we need to delete the tempfile before acquiring a lock?
Or did you mean doing this after the testing(in the cleanup phase).

BTW, seems the child report a wrong status of the locked file, while
fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) return -1 and sets errno to EACCES or EAGAIN,
shouldn't that mean the file already been locked by the parent?


+
        if (fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) == -1) {
                printf("Could not set initial lock: %s (%d)\n",
                       strerror(errno), errno);
--
2.17.1


--
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp


--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20210219/d1be1a68/attachment.htm>

[LTP] [PATCH] openposix/fork/11-1.c: Clean up temporary file

[Li Wang]

On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 5:34 PM zhaogongyi <zhaogongyi@huawei.com> wrote:

> Hi Li,
>
>
>
> I think we need to delete the tempfile after the testing(in the cleanup
> phase).
>
>
>
> In this case, we just hope that call unlink after open/mkstemp since
> unlink would not destroy the inode,
>
>
>
> so call unlink before fork would not affect the test?
>

Right, but better to put behind of close(fd) that makes logic more clear.


>
> BTW, seems the child report a wrong status of the locked file, while
>
> fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) return -1 and sets errno to EACCES or EAGAIN,
>
> shouldn't that mean the file already been locked by the parent?
>

And what do u think about this?

-- 
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20210219/044cfd15/attachment.htm>

[LTP] [PATCH] openposix/fork/11-1.c: Clean up temporary file

[zhaogongyi]

Hi Li,

That?s right, i will modify the patch and resubmit it.

Thanks


On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 5:34 PM zhaogongyi <zhaogongyi@huawei.com<mailto:zhaogongyi@huawei.com>> wrote:
Hi Li,

I think we need to delete the tempfile after the testing(in the cleanup phase).

In this case, we just hope that call unlink after open/mkstemp since unlink would not destroy the inode,

so call unlink before fork would not affect the test?

Right, but better to put behind of close(fd) that makes logic more clear.


BTW, seems the child report a wrong status of the locked file, while
fcntl(fd, F_SETLK, &fl) return -1 and sets errno to EACCES or EAGAIN,
shouldn't that mean the file already been locked by the parent?

And what do u think about this?

--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20210220/bb35b0f0/attachment-0001.htm>