From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 16:10:31 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] shmctl01: don't use hardcoded index == 0 for SHM_STAT test In-Reply-To: <224303782.23845756.1558446563195.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <20190521095833.GA12205@rei> <224303782.23845756.1558446563195.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20190521141030.GA6655@dell5510> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Jan, Cyril, > ----- Original Message ----- > > Hi! > > > +static void func_sstat_setup(void) > > > +{ > > > + struct shm_info tmp; > > > + int ret; > > > + > > > + ret = shmctl(shm_id_1, SHM_INFO, (void *)&tmp); > > > + if (ret < 0) > > > + tst_resm(TFAIL|TERRNO, "shmctl(SHM_INFO)"); > > I wonder if it makes sense to continue here if shmctl() has failed, > > maybe we should do tst_brkm(TBROK ...) instead. > It is 'setup phase', but it also is kind-of test for shmctl() as well. > We don't risk much if we continue, worst case is we get one more fail. > @Petr: Do you have any preference? Cyril's point makes sense, but I prefer Jan's way. Kind regards, Petr