[LTP] [PATCH v2] android: pty01: Fix pty01 test for Android.

[enh <enh@google.com>]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2017 at 2:08 AM, Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
>> The test fails because 'grantpt()' is a no-op in bionic and doesn't set
>> the /dev/pts/X mode to '020600' as expected by the test. The change
>> skips that check if __BIONIC__ is defined so the rest of the test(s)
>> can proceed and detect other failures if any.
>
>> Signed-off-by: Sandeep Patil <sspatil@google.com>
>> ---
>> v1->v2
>> ------
>> - Change the check from __ANDROID__ to __BIONIC__
>
>>  testcases/kernel/pty/pty01.c | 3 +++
>>  1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/pty/pty01.c b/testcases/kernel/pty/pty01.c
>> index cbcc65c97..283612d55 100644
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/pty/pty01.c
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/pty/pty01.c
>> @@ -99,9 +99,12 @@ static int test1(void)
>>               tst_brkm(TBROK, NULL, "uid mismatch");
>>       }
>
>> +      /* grantpt() is a no-op in bionic. */
>> +#ifndef __BIONIC__
>>       if (st.st_mode != (S_IFCHR | S_IRUSR | S_IWUSR | S_IWGRP)) {
>>               tst_brkm(TBROK, NULL, "mode mismatch (mode=%o)", st.st_mode);
>>       }
>> +#endif
>
>>       slavefd = open(slavename, O_RDWR);
>>       if (slavefd >= 0) {
>
> LGTM (tested on Android API level 16).
>
> I wonder, whether it's really better to use __BIONIC__ instead of __ANDROID__ (works with
> both), but assume it is if it's really bionic specific.

yeah, grantpt unconditionally does nothing in bionic, regardless of
whether you're running on an Android device or a desktop/server Linux
box.

> Kind regards,
> Petr