From: "Mitani" <mitani@ryobi.co.jp>
To: 'Garrett Cooper' <yanegomi@gmail.com>
Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [LTP] POSIX "aio_return/2-1" failed.
Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:58:58 +0900 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <000001cb758b$486ce0b0$d946a210$@co.jp> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTimDETzyfPgE7R_6ee1GF5_aJSL6xuBpAtXRwv6f@mail.gmail.com>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:yanegomi@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 9:00 PM
> To: Mitani
> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> Subject: Re: [LTP] POSIX "aio_return/2-1" failed.
>
> On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 4:50 AM, Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:yanegomi@gmail.com]
> >> Sent: Thursday, October 21, 2010 6:42 PM
> >> To: Mitani
> >> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> >> Subject: Re: [LTP] POSIX "aio_return/2-1" failed.
> >>
> >> On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:00 AM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 10:29 PM, Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> wrote:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "conformance/interfaces/aio_return/2-1" failed with following
> >> message:
> >> >> ------------
> >> >> conformance/interfaces/aio_return/2-1: execution: FAILED:
> Output:
> >> >> aio_return/2-1.c Second call to aio_return() should return -1 :
> 111
> >> >> ------------
> >> >>
> >> >> Same problem occurs in "aio_return/3-2.c" and "aio_return/4-1".
> >> >>
> >> >> Environment is as follows:
> >> >> - RHEL5.5 --- (x86, x86_64, ia64)
> >> >> - RHEL4.8 --- (x86, x86_64, ia64)
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> This testset seems to be the error root test for "aio_return()".
> >> >>
> >> >> First "aio_return()" returned with 111. This return value is the
> >> >> length of buffer of "aio_write()".
> >> >> But second "aio_return()" returned with 111, too. It's unexpected
> >> >> result for this test set.
> >> >> Therefore, this test failed.
> >> >>
> >> >> Man page says that
> >> >> "This function should be called only once for any given request,
> >> >> after
> >> >> aio_error(2) returns something other than EINPROGRESS.":
> >> >> ------------
> >> >> # LANG=C man 3 aio_return
> >> >>
> >> >> AIO_RETURN(3) Linux Programmer's Manual
> >> >> AIO_RETURN(3)
> >> >>
> >> >> NAME
> >> >> aio_return - get return status of asynchronous I/O
> operation
> >> >>
> >> >> SYNOPSIS
> >> >> #include <aio.h>
> >> >>
> >> >> ssize_t aio_return(struct aiocb *aiocbp);
> >> >>
> >> >> DESCRIPTION
> >> >> The aio_return function returns the final return status
> for
> >> the
> >> >> asynchronous I/O
> >> >> request with control block pointed to by aiocbp.
> >> >>
> >>
> >> This function should be called only once for an
> >> y given
> >> >> request, after
> >> >> aio_error(2) returns something other than EINPROGRESS.
> >> >>
> >> >> RETURN VALUE
> >> >> If the asynchronous I/O operation has completed, this
> >> function
> >> >> returns the value
> >> >> that would have been returned in case of a
> >> synchronous read,
> >> >> write, or fsync
> >> >> request. Otherwise the return value is undefined. On
> >> error,
> >> >> the error value is
> >> >> returned.
> >> >>
> >> >> ERRORS
> >> >> EINVAL aiocbp does not point at a control block for an
> >> >> asynchronous I/O request
> >> >> of which the return status has not been retrieved
> >> yet.
> >> >>
> >> >> CONFORMING TO
> >> >> POSIX 1003.1-2003
> >> >>
> >> >> SEE ALSO
> >>
> >> aio_cancel(3), aio_error(3), aio_fsync(3), aio_r
> >> ead(3),
> >> >> aio_suspend(3),
> >> >> aio_write(3)
> >> >>
> >> >> 2003-11-14
> >> >> AIO_RETURN(3)
> >> >> #
> >> >> ------------
> >> >>
> >> >> And, it says that
> >> >> "If the asynchronous I/O operation has completed, this function
> >> >> returns the value that would have been returned in case of a
> >> >> synchronous read, write, or fsync request. Otherwise the return
> >> >> value is undefined. On error, the error value is returned.".
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> It can be supposed that the return value of second "aio_return()"
> >> is
> >> >> undefined.
> >> >> Therefore, it is not mistake that return value of the second
> >> "aio_return()"
> >> >> is one at success, I think.
> >> >> And, I think that "UNTESTED" or "UNRESOLVED" may be is more
> >> >> appropriate for this test.
> >> >
> >> > No. POSIX clearly states:
> >> >
> >> > "If the asynchronous I/O operation has completed, then the return
> >> > status, as described for read(), write(), and fsync(), shall be
> >> > returned. If the asynchronous I/O operation has not yet completed,
> >> the
> >> > results of aio_return() are undefined.
> >> >
> >> > If the aio_return() function fails, it shall return -1 and set
> errno
> >> > to indicate the error."
> >> >
> >> > ERRORS
> >> >
> >> > "The aio_return() function may fail if:
> >> >
> >> > [EINVAL]
> >> > The aiocbp argument does not refer to an asynchronous
> operation
> >> > whose return status has not yet been retrieved."
> >> >
> >> > What the test implementers were looking to do was test out
> that
> >> -1
> >> > / EINVAL were returned, and maybe that fact that they were testing
> >> was
> >> > in fact implementation defined, as opposed to what's stated in
> the
> >> > standard, as the spec doesn't state that the behavior for
> aio_return
> >> > would be s.t. the state of the AIO stream is reset when aio_return
> >> is
> >> > called.
> >> > So yes, I agree this should be fixed, but let me check with
> the
> >> > POSIX folks what the best course of action is.
> >>
> >> I've read into this a bit more, and I think that the aio_return
> >> testcases were written incorrectly. Please try out this testcase...
> >> if it works for you, then I'll apply necessary logic to other
> testcases
> >> as well.
> >> It worked for me at least on FreeBSD.
> >> Thanks,
> >> -Garrett
> >
> >
> > I confirmed that your revision worked in my environment.
> > I also look forward to other testcases (2-1, 3-2, 4-1) being revised.
>
> Please update your git, rebuild, and test :).
> Let me know if you run into any issues.
> Cheers,
> -Garrett
I tried to run "aio_return" tests, but some of them failed with following
message:
------------
conformance/interfaces/aio_return/3-2: execution: FAILED: Output:
aio_return/3-2.c aio_return() should fail with (-1, 22); failed with (4096,
0) instead
conformance/interfaces/aio_return/2-1: execution: FAILED: Output:
aio_return/2-1.c Second call to aio_return() should return -1; aio_return()
returned 111
------------
Environment is as follows:
- RHEL4.8 --- (x86, x86_64, ia64)
- RHEL5.5 --- (x86, x86_64, ia64)
- kernel --- kernel-2.6.9-89.EL
- glibc --- glibc-2.3.4-2.43
The reason of above failures is that second "aio_return()" doesn't return
"-1".
The manpage of "aio_return()" of "FreeBSD 9-current" says:
--------------------
RETURN VALUES
If the asynchronous I/O request has completed, the status is returned
as
described in read(2), write(2), or fsync(2). Otherwise, aio_return()
returns -1 and sets errno to indicate the error condition.
--------------------
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/man.cgi?query=aio_return&apropos=0&sektion=0&manp
ath=FreeBSD+9-current&format=html
On the other hand, the manpage of RHEL4.8/RHEL5.5 says:
--------------------
RETURN VALUE
If the asynchronous I/O operation has completed, this function
returns
the value that would have been returned in case of a synchronous
read,
write, or fsync request. Otherwise the return value is undefined.
On
error, the error value is returned.
--------------------
According to this manual, the return value may not be "-1" in Redhat
systems.
Perhaps "aio_return()" doesn't have guarantee to return "-1" even in
other Linux systems, I think.
Regards--
-Tomonori Mitani
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nokia and AT&T present the 2010 Calling All Innovators-North America contest
Create new apps & games for the Nokia N8 for consumers in U.S. and Canada
$10 million total in prizes - $4M cash, 500 devices, nearly $6M in marketing
Develop with Nokia Qt SDK, Web Runtime, or Java and Publish to Ovi Store
http://p.sf.net/sfu/nokia-dev2dev
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
prev parent reply other threads:[~2010-10-27 3:59 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <ActmqbqJnH8VAq0bTbe+8e3aEkHF9Q==>
2010-10-08 5:29 ` [LTP] POSIX "aio_return/2-1" failed Mitani
2010-10-12 20:23 ` Garrett Cooper
2010-10-18 12:00 ` Garrett Cooper
2010-10-21 9:41 ` Garrett Cooper
2010-10-21 11:50 ` Mitani
2010-10-21 11:59 ` Garrett Cooper
2010-10-27 3:58 ` Mitani [this message]
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='000001cb758b$486ce0b0$d946a210$@co.jp' \
--to=mitani@ryobi.co.jp \
--cc=ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=yanegomi@gmail.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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.