[LTP] add_key01 & add_key02 test cases fails and shown as PASS in log file

[LTP] add_key01 & add_key02 test cases fails and shown as PASS in log file

[srikanth krishnakar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1468 bytes --]

I see these two test cases are failing on PowerPC target (ppc440) as shown
in output file, but they are listed as PASS in log file of the LTP :

Target : PowerPC (ppc440)
Kernel: Linux-2.6.29
LTP Version : ltp-full-20090731

LTP output file :
#############


1. add_key01
--------------------

<<<test_start>>>
tag=add_key01 stime=1248549741
cmdline="add_key01"
contacts=""
analysis=exit
<<<test_output>>>
add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
implemented
<<<execution_status>>>
initiation_status="ok"
duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
cutime=0 cstime=0
<<<test_end>>>

2. add_key02
----------------------

<<<test_start>>>
tag=add_key02 stime=1248549741
cmdline="add_key02"
contacts=""
analysis=exit
<<<test_output>>>
add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got UNEXPECTED
errno:38
add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
implemented
<<<execution_status>>>
initiation_status="ok"
duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
cutime=0 cstime=1
<<<test_end>>>

--------------------------------------------------------

BUT the Log file shows as PASS to the above test cases :

###########################

add_key01                      PASS       0
add_key02                      PASS       0

###########################


May anyone explain, why it is so ? Is it a known behaviour ?


Regards
Srikanth Krishnakar
**********************

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 1884 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] add_key01 & add_key02 test cases fails and shown as PASS in log file

[Subrata Modak]

On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:56 +0530, srikanth krishnakar wrote:
> I see these two test cases are failing on PowerPC target (ppc440) as
> shown in output file, but they are listed as PASS in log file of the
> LTP :
> 
> Target : PowerPC (ppc440)
> Kernel: Linux-2.6.29
> LTP Version : ltp-full-20090731
> 
> LTP output file :
> #############
> 
> 
> 1. add_key01
> --------------------
> 
> <<<test_start>>>
> tag=add_key01 stime=1248549741
> cmdline="add_key01"
> contacts=""
> analysis=exit
> <<<test_output>>>
> add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
> implemented
> <<<execution_status>>>
> initiation_status="ok"
> duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> cutime=0 cstime=0
> <<<test_end>>>
> 
> 2. add_key02
> ----------------------
> 
> <<<test_start>>>
> tag=add_key02 stime=1248549741
> cmdline="add_key02"
> contacts=""
> analysis=exit
> <<<test_output>>>
> add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got
> UNEXPECTED errno:38
> add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
> implemented
> <<<execution_status>>>
> initiation_status="ok"
> duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> cutime=0 cstime=1
> <<<test_end>>>
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> 
> BUT the Log file shows as PASS to the above test cases :
> 
> ###########################
> 
> add_key01                      PASS       0
> add_key02                      PASS       0
> 
> ###########################
> 
> 
> May anyone explain, why it is so ? Is it a known behaviour ?

No. It is not. On my X_32, it passes fine.

$ ./testcases/bin/add_key01
add_key01    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
$ echo $?
0
$ ./testcases/bin/add_key02
add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got EXPECTED
errno:22
add_key02    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
$ echo $?
0
$ uname -a
Linux 2.6.18-92.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr 29 13:16:12 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386
GNU/Linux

Regards--
Subrata

>  
> 
> Regards
> Srikanth Krishnakar
> ********************** 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] add_key01 & add_key02 test cases fails and shown as PASS in log file

[srikanth krishnakar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3005 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Subrata Modak
<subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>wrote:

> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:56 +0530, srikanth krishnakar wrote:
> > I see these two test cases are failing on PowerPC target (ppc440) as
> > shown in output file, but they are listed as PASS in log file of the
> > LTP :
> >
> > Target : PowerPC (ppc440)
> > Kernel: Linux-2.6.29
> > LTP Version : ltp-full-20090731
> >
> > LTP output file :
> > #############
> >
> >
> > 1. add_key01
> > --------------------
> >
> > <<<test_start>>>
> > tag=add_key01 stime=1248549741
> > cmdline="add_key01"
> > contacts=""
> > analysis=exit
> > <<<test_output>>>
> > add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
> > implemented
> > <<<execution_status>>>
> > initiation_status="ok"
> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> > cutime=0 cstime=0
> > <<<test_end>>>
> >
> > 2. add_key02
> > ----------------------
> >
> > <<<test_start>>>
> > tag=add_key02 stime=1248549741
> > cmdline="add_key02"
> > contacts=""
> > analysis=exit
> > <<<test_output>>>
> > add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got
> > UNEXPECTED errno:38
> > add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
> > implemented
> > <<<execution_status>>>
> > initiation_status="ok"
> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> > cutime=0 cstime=1
> > <<<test_end>>>
> >
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > BUT the Log file shows as PASS to the above test cases :
> >
> > ###########################
> >
> > add_key01                      PASS       0
> > add_key02                      PASS       0
> >
> > ###########################
> >
> >
> > May anyone explain, why it is so ? Is it a known behaviour ?
>
> No. It is not. On my X_32, it passes fine.


Is it PowePC target on which you have tested ?

>
>
> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key01
> add_key01    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
> $ echo $?
> 0
> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key02
> add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got EXPECTED
> errno:22
> add_key02    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
> $ echo $?
> 0
> $ uname -a
> Linux 2.6.18-92.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr 29 13:16:12 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386
> GNU/Linux
>
> Regards--
> Subrata
>
> >
> >
> > Regards
> > Srikanth Krishnakar
> > **********************
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
> 30-Day
> > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
> focus on
> > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> > Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> > _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list
> Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
>
>


-- 
"The Good You Do, The Best You GET"

Regards
Srikanth Krishnakar
**********************

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4420 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] add_key01 & add_key02 test cases fails and shown as PASS in log file

[Garrett Cooper]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:29 AM, srikanth
krishnakar<skrishnakar@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Subrata Modak <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:56 +0530, srikanth krishnakar wrote:
>> > I see these two test cases are failing on PowerPC target (ppc440) as
>> > shown in output file, but they are listed as PASS in log file of the
>> > LTP :
>> >
>> > Target : PowerPC (ppc440)
>> > Kernel: Linux-2.6.29
>> > LTP Version : ltp-full-20090731
>> >
>> > LTP output file :
>> > #############
>> >
>> >
>> > 1. add_key01
>> > --------------------
>> >
>> > <<<test_start>>>
>> > tag=add_key01 stime=1248549741
>> > cmdline="add_key01"
>> > contacts=""
>> > analysis=exit
>> > <<<test_output>>>
>> > add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
>> > implemented
>> > <<<execution_status>>>
>> > initiation_status="ok"
>> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
>> > cutime=0 cstime=0
>> > <<<test_end>>>
>> >
>> > 2. add_key02
>> > ----------------------
>> >
>> > <<<test_start>>>
>> > tag=add_key02 stime=1248549741
>> > cmdline="add_key02"
>> > contacts=""
>> > analysis=exit
>> > <<<test_output>>>
>> > add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got
>> > UNEXPECTED errno:38
>> > add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
>> > implemented
>> > <<<execution_status>>>
>> > initiation_status="ok"
>> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
>> > cutime=0 cstime=1
>> > <<<test_end>>>
>> >
>> > --------------------------------------------------------
>> >
>> > BUT the Log file shows as PASS to the above test cases :
>> >
>> > ###########################
>> >
>> > add_key01                      PASS       0
>> > add_key02                      PASS       0
>> >
>> > ###########################
>> >
>> >
>> > May anyone explain, why it is so ? Is it a known behaviour ?
>>
>> No. It is not. On my X_32, it passes fine.
>
> Is it PowePC target on which you have tested ?
>>
>>
>> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key01
>> add_key01    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
>> $ echo $?
>> 0
>> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key02
>> add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got EXPECTED
>> errno:22
>> add_key02    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
>> $ echo $?
>> 0
>> $ uname -a
>> Linux 2.6.18-92.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr 29 13:16:12 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386
>> GNU/Linux

Hi Srikanth,
    I think that the error is fairly intuitive (function not
implemented). Are you sure that your subarchitecture supports
add_key(2)?
Hi Subrata,
    As far as the actual issue is concerned, I think that the problem
is that someone's exiting with exit(0) instead of tst_exit()...
Thanks,
-Garrett

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] add_key01 & add_key02 test cases fails and shown as PASS in log file

[srikanth krishnakar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3161 bytes --]

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:29 AM, srikanth
> krishnakar<skrishnakar@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Subrata Modak <
> subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:56 +0530, srikanth krishnakar wrote:
> >> > I see these two test cases are failing on PowerPC target (ppc440) as
> >> > shown in output file, but they are listed as PASS in log file of the
> >> > LTP :
> >> >
> >> > Target : PowerPC (ppc440)
> >> > Kernel: Linux-2.6.29
> >> > LTP Version : ltp-full-20090731
> >> >
> >> > LTP output file :
> >> > #############
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 1. add_key01
> >> > --------------------
> >> >
> >> > <<<test_start>>>
> >> > tag=add_key01 stime=1248549741
> >> > cmdline="add_key01"
> >> > contacts=""
> >> > analysis=exit
> >> > <<<test_output>>>
> >> > add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
> >> > implemented
> >> > <<<execution_status>>>
> >> > initiation_status="ok"
> >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> >> > cutime=0 cstime=0
> >> > <<<test_end>>>
> >> >
> >> > 2. add_key02
> >> > ----------------------
> >> >
> >> > <<<test_start>>>
> >> > tag=add_key02 stime=1248549741
> >> > cmdline="add_key02"
> >> > contacts=""
> >> > analysis=exit
> >> > <<<test_output>>>
> >> > add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got
> >> > UNEXPECTED errno:38
> >> > add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
> >> > implemented
> >> > <<<execution_status>>>
> >> > initiation_status="ok"
> >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> >> > cutime=0 cstime=1
> >> > <<<test_end>>>
> >> >
> >> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > BUT the Log file shows as PASS to the above test cases :
> >> >
> >> > ###########################
> >> >
> >> > add_key01                      PASS       0
> >> > add_key02                      PASS       0
> >> >
> >> > ###########################
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > May anyone explain, why it is so ? Is it a known behaviour ?
> >>
> >> No. It is not. On my X_32, it passes fine.
> >
> > Is it PowePC target on which you have tested ?
> >>
> >>
> >> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key01
> >> add_key01    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
> >> $ echo $?
> >> 0
> >> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key02
> >> add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got EXPECTED
> >> errno:22
> >> add_key02    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
> >> $ echo $?
> >> 0
> >> $ uname -a
> >> Linux 2.6.18-92.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr 29 13:16:12 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386
> >> GNU/Linux
>
> Hi Srikanth,
>    I think that the error is fairly intuitive (function not
> implemented). Are you sure that your subarchitecture supports
> add_key(2)?
> Hi Subrata,
>    As far as the actual issue is concerned, I think that the problem
> is that someone's exiting with exit(0) instead of tst_exit()...
> Thanks,
> -Garrett
>

Thanks Garrett,

I will look into it.

-- 
"The Good You Do, The Best You GET"

Regards
Srikanth Krishnakar
**********************

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4817 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] add_key01 & add_key02 test cases fails and shown as PASS in log file

[srikanth krishnakar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4623 bytes --]

Hi all,

I observed that these two test cases are known to be failing on following
architectures :

1. *PowerPC* (ppc440)    > Kernel *Linux-2.6.29.6*
2. *MIPS*                       > Kernel *Linux-2.6.28.10*

<<<test_start>>>
tag=*add_key01* stime=1249655730
cmdline="add_key01"
contacts=""
analysis=exit
<<<test_output>>>
add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 : *Function not
implemented*
<<<execution_status>>>
initiation_status="ok"
duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
cutime=1 cstime=0
<<<test_end>>>


<<<test_start>>>
tag=*add_key02* stime=1249655730
cmdline="add_key02"
contacts=""
analysis=exit
<<<test_output>>>
add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got UNEXPECTED
errno:38
add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 :* Function not
implemented*
<<<execution_status>>>
initiation_status="ok"
duration=1 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
cutime=0 cstime=2
<<<test_end>>>

Are these two test cases intended for these architectures ? Have you tested
these tests on any of above mentioned architectures ?

Waiting for your comments ?

-Srikanth

On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM, srikanth krishnakar
<skrishnakar@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Garrett Cooper <yanegomi@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:29 AM, srikanth
>> krishnakar<skrishnakar@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Subrata Modak <
>> subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:56 +0530, srikanth krishnakar wrote:
>> >> > I see these two test cases are failing on PowerPC target (ppc440) as
>> >> > shown in output file, but they are listed as PASS in log file of the
>> >> > LTP :
>> >> >
>> >> > Target : PowerPC (ppc440)
>> >> > Kernel: Linux-2.6.29
>> >> > LTP Version : ltp-full-20090731
>> >> >
>> >> > LTP output file :
>> >> > #############
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > 1. add_key01
>> >> > --------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > <<<test_start>>>
>> >> > tag=add_key01 stime=1248549741
>> >> > cmdline="add_key01"
>> >> > contacts=""
>> >> > analysis=exit
>> >> > <<<test_output>>>
>> >> > add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 : Function
>> not
>> >> > implemented
>> >> > <<<execution_status>>>
>> >> > initiation_status="ok"
>> >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
>> >> > cutime=0 cstime=0
>> >> > <<<test_end>>>
>> >> >
>> >> > 2. add_key02
>> >> > ----------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > <<<test_start>>>
>> >> > tag=add_key02 stime=1248549741
>> >> > cmdline="add_key02"
>> >> > contacts=""
>> >> > analysis=exit
>> >> > <<<test_output>>>
>> >> > add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got
>> >> > UNEXPECTED errno:38
>> >> > add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 : Function
>> not
>> >> > implemented
>> >> > <<<execution_status>>>
>> >> > initiation_status="ok"
>> >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
>> >> > cutime=0 cstime=1
>> >> > <<<test_end>>>
>> >> >
>> >> > --------------------------------------------------------
>> >> >
>> >> > BUT the Log file shows as PASS to the above test cases :
>> >> >
>> >> > ###########################
>> >> >
>> >> > add_key01                      PASS       0
>> >> > add_key02                      PASS       0
>> >> >
>> >> > ###########################
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > May anyone explain, why it is so ? Is it a known behaviour ?
>> >>
>> >> No. It is not. On my X_32, it passes fine.
>> >
>> > Is it PowePC target on which you have tested ?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key01
>> >> add_key01    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
>> >> $ echo $?
>> >> 0
>> >> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key02
>> >> add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got EXPECTED
>> >> errno:22
>> >> add_key02    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
>> >> $ echo $?
>> >> 0
>> >> $ uname -a
>> >> Linux 2.6.18-92.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr 29 13:16:12 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386
>> >> GNU/Linux
>>
>> Hi Srikanth,
>>    I think that the error is fairly intuitive (function not
>> implemented). Are you sure that your subarchitecture supports
>> add_key(2)?
>> Hi Subrata,
>>    As far as the actual issue is concerned, I think that the problem
>> is that someone's exiting with exit(0) instead of tst_exit()...
>> Thanks,
>> -Garrett
>>
>
> Thanks Garrett,
>
> I will look into it.
>
>
> --
> "The Good You Do, The Best You GET"
>
> Regards
> Srikanth Krishnakar
> **********************
>



-- 
"The Good You Do, The Best You GET"

Regards
Srikanth Krishnakar
**********************

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 7186 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] add_key01 & add_key02 test cases fails and shown as PASS in log file

[Michal Simek]

Trace add_key syscall and find that for this testcases you have to
enable CONFIG_KEYS in your kernel.
This could be reason to add new return value for Function is not
implemented and any sensible description
to test.

Cheers,
Michal
> Hi all,
>
> I observed that these two test cases are known to be failing on
> following architectures :
>
> 1. *PowerPC* (ppc440)    > Kernel */Linux-2.6.29.6/*
> 2. *MIPS*                       > Kernel /*Linux-2.6.28.10*/
>
> <<<test_start>>>
> tag=*add_key01* stime=1249655730
> cmdline="add_key01"
> contacts=""
> analysis=exit
> <<<test_output>>>
> add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 : *Function
> not implemented*
> <<<execution_status>>>
> initiation_status="ok"
> duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> cutime=1 cstime=0
> <<<test_end>>>
>
>
> <<<test_start>>>
> tag=*add_key02* stime=1249655730
> cmdline="add_key02"
> contacts=""
> analysis=exit
> <<<test_output>>>
> add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got
> UNEXPECTED errno:38
> add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 :* Function
> not implemented*
> <<<execution_status>>>
> initiation_status="ok"
> duration=1 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> cutime=0 cstime=2
> <<<test_end>>>
>  
> Are these two test cases intended for these architectures ? Have you
> tested these tests on any of above mentioned architectures ?
>
> Waiting for your comments ?
>
> -Srikanth
>  
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM, srikanth krishnakar
> <skrishnakar@gmail.com <mailto:skrishnakar@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Garrett Cooper
>     <yanegomi@gmail.com <mailto:yanegomi@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:29 AM, srikanth
>         krishnakar<skrishnakar@gmail.com
>         <mailto:skrishnakar@gmail.com>> wrote:
>         >
>         >
>         > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Subrata Modak
>         <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com <mailto:subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>>
>         > wrote:
>         >>
>         >> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:56 +0530, srikanth krishnakar wrote:
>         >> > I see these two test cases are failing on PowerPC target
>         (ppc440) as
>         >> > shown in output file, but they are listed as PASS in log
>         file of the
>         >> > LTP :
>         >> >
>         >> > Target : PowerPC (ppc440)
>         >> > Kernel: Linux-2.6.29
>         >> > LTP Version : ltp-full-20090731
>         >> >
>         >> > LTP output file :
>         >> > #############
>         >> >
>         >> >
>         >> > 1. add_key01
>         >> > --------------------
>         >> >
>         >> > <<<test_start>>>
>         >> > tag=add_key01 stime=1248549741
>         >> > cmdline="add_key01"
>         >> > contacts=""
>         >> > analysis=exit
>         >> > <<<test_output>>>
>         >> > add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 :
>         Function not
>         >> > implemented
>         >> > <<<execution_status>>>
>         >> > initiation_status="ok"
>         >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0
>         corefile=no
>         >> > cutime=0 cstime=0
>         >> > <<<test_end>>>
>         >> >
>         >> > 2. add_key02
>         >> > ----------------------
>         >> >
>         >> > <<<test_start>>>
>         >> > tag=add_key02 stime=1248549741
>         >> > cmdline="add_key02"
>         >> > contacts=""
>         >> > analysis=exit
>         >> > <<<test_output>>>
>         >> > add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got
>         >> > UNEXPECTED errno:38
>         >> > add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 :
>         Function not
>         >> > implemented
>         >> > <<<execution_status>>>
>         >> > initiation_status="ok"
>         >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0
>         corefile=no
>         >> > cutime=0 cstime=1
>         >> > <<<test_end>>>
>         >> >
>         >> > --------------------------------------------------------
>         >> >
>         >> > BUT the Log file shows as PASS to the above test cases :
>         >> >
>         >> > ###########################
>         >> >
>         >> > add_key01                      PASS       0
>         >> > add_key02                      PASS       0
>         >> >
>         >> > ###########################
>         >> >
>         >> >
>         >> > May anyone explain, why it is so ? Is it a known behaviour ?
>         >>
>         >> No. It is not. On my X_32, it passes fine.
>         >
>         > Is it PowePC target on which you have tested ?
>         >>
>         >>
>         >> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key01
>         >> add_key01    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
>         >> $ echo $?
>         >> 0
>         >> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key02
>         >> add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args
>         got EXPECTED
>         >> errno:22
>         >> add_key02    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
>         >> $ echo $?
>         >> 0
>         >> $ uname -a
>         >> Linux 2.6.18-92.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr 29 13:16:12 EDT 2008
>         i686 i686 i386
>         >> GNU/Linux
>
>         Hi Srikanth,
>            I think that the error is fairly intuitive (function not
>         implemented). Are you sure that your subarchitecture supports
>         add_key(2)?
>         Hi Subrata,
>            As far as the actual issue is concerned, I think that the
>         problem
>         is that someone's exiting with exit(0) instead of tst_exit()...
>         Thanks,
>         -Garrett
>
>
>     Thanks Garrett,
>
>     I will look into it.
>
>
>     -- 
>     "The Good You Do, The Best You GET"
>
>     Regards
>     Srikanth Krishnakar
>     **********************
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> "The Good You Do, The Best You GET"
>
> Regards
> Srikanth Krishnakar
> **********************
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
> trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
> what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
> Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltp-list mailing list
> Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
>   


-- 
Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
PetaLogix - Linux Solutions for a Reconfigurable World
w: www.petalogix.com p: +61-7-30090663,+42-0-721842854 f: +61-7-30090663


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] add_key01 & add_key02 test cases fails and shown as PASS in log file

[srikanth krishnakar]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 7757 bytes --]

Thanks Michal,

I have following options set in my kernel :

#
# Security options
#
*# CONFIG_KEYS is not set*
CONFIG_SECURITY=y
# CONFIG_SECURITYFS is not set
# CONFIG_SECURITY_NETWORK is not set
# CONFIG_SECURITY_PATH is not set
# CONFIG_SECURITY_FILE_CAPABILITIES is not set
CONFIG_SECURITY_DEFAULT_MMAP_MIN_ADDR=0
CONFIG_CRYPTO=y

#

I will re-run after setting this option.

Thanks,
-Srikanth

On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 12:06 AM, Michal Simek
<michal.simek@petalogix.com>wrote:

> Trace add_key syscall and find that for this testcases you have to
> enable CONFIG_KEYS in your kernel.
> This could be reason to add new return value for Function is not
> implemented and any sensible description
> to test.
>
> Cheers,
> Michal
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I observed that these two test cases are known to be failing on
> > following architectures :
> >
> > 1. *PowerPC* (ppc440)    > Kernel */Linux-2.6.29.6/*
> > 2. *MIPS*                       > Kernel /*Linux-2.6.28.10*/
> >
> > <<<test_start>>>
> > tag=*add_key01* stime=1249655730
> > cmdline="add_key01"
> > contacts=""
> > analysis=exit
> > <<<test_output>>>
> > add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 : *Function
> > not implemented*
> > <<<execution_status>>>
> > initiation_status="ok"
> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> > cutime=1 cstime=0
> > <<<test_end>>>
> >
> >
> > <<<test_start>>>
> > tag=*add_key02* stime=1249655730
> > cmdline="add_key02"
> > contacts=""
> > analysis=exit
> > <<<test_output>>>
> > add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got
> > UNEXPECTED errno:38
> > add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 :* Function
> > not implemented*
> > <<<execution_status>>>
> > initiation_status="ok"
> > duration=1 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> > cutime=0 cstime=2
> > <<<test_end>>>
> >
> > Are these two test cases intended for these architectures ? Have you
> > tested these tests on any of above mentioned architectures ?
> >
> > Waiting for your comments ?
> >
> > -Srikanth
> >
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:54 PM, srikanth krishnakar
> > <skrishnakar@gmail.com <mailto:skrishnakar@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >     On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:14 PM, Garrett Cooper
> >     <yanegomi@gmail.com <mailto:yanegomi@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> >         On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:29 AM, srikanth
> >         krishnakar<skrishnakar@gmail.com
> >         <mailto:skrishnakar@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >         >
> >         >
> >         > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Subrata Modak
> >         <subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com <mailto:subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com>>
> >         > wrote:
> >         >>
> >         >> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:56 +0530, srikanth krishnakar wrote:
> >         >> > I see these two test cases are failing on PowerPC target
> >         (ppc440) as
> >         >> > shown in output file, but they are listed as PASS in log
> >         file of the
> >         >> > LTP :
> >         >> >
> >         >> > Target : PowerPC (ppc440)
> >         >> > Kernel: Linux-2.6.29
> >         >> > LTP Version : ltp-full-20090731
> >         >> >
> >         >> > LTP output file :
> >         >> > #############
> >         >> >
> >         >> >
> >         >> > 1. add_key01
> >         >> > --------------------
> >         >> >
> >         >> > <<<test_start>>>
> >         >> > tag=add_key01 stime=1248549741
> >         >> > cmdline="add_key01"
> >         >> > contacts=""
> >         >> > analysis=exit
> >         >> > <<<test_output>>>
> >         >> > add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 :
> >         Function not
> >         >> > implemented
> >         >> > <<<execution_status>>>
> >         >> > initiation_status="ok"
> >         >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0
> >         corefile=no
> >         >> > cutime=0 cstime=0
> >         >> > <<<test_end>>>
> >         >> >
> >         >> > 2. add_key02
> >         >> > ----------------------
> >         >> >
> >         >> > <<<test_start>>>
> >         >> > tag=add_key02 stime=1248549741
> >         >> > cmdline="add_key02"
> >         >> > contacts=""
> >         >> > analysis=exit
> >         >> > <<<test_output>>>
> >         >> > add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got
> >         >> > UNEXPECTED errno:38
> >         >> > add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 :
> >         Function not
> >         >> > implemented
> >         >> > <<<execution_status>>>
> >         >> > initiation_status="ok"
> >         >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0
> >         corefile=no
> >         >> > cutime=0 cstime=1
> >         >> > <<<test_end>>>
> >         >> >
> >         >> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >         >> >
> >         >> > BUT the Log file shows as PASS to the above test cases :
> >         >> >
> >         >> > ###########################
> >         >> >
> >         >> > add_key01                      PASS       0
> >         >> > add_key02                      PASS       0
> >         >> >
> >         >> > ###########################
> >         >> >
> >         >> >
> >         >> > May anyone explain, why it is so ? Is it a known behaviour ?
> >         >>
> >         >> No. It is not. On my X_32, it passes fine.
> >         >
> >         > Is it PowePC target on which you have tested ?
> >         >>
> >         >>
> >         >> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key01
> >         >> add_key01    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
> >         >> $ echo $?
> >         >> 0
> >         >> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key02
> >         >> add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args
> >         got EXPECTED
> >         >> errno:22
> >         >> add_key02    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
> >         >> $ echo $?
> >         >> 0
> >         >> $ uname -a
> >         >> Linux 2.6.18-92.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr 29 13:16:12 EDT 2008
> >         i686 i686 i386
> >         >> GNU/Linux
> >
> >         Hi Srikanth,
> >            I think that the error is fairly intuitive (function not
> >         implemented). Are you sure that your subarchitecture supports
> >         add_key(2)?
> >         Hi Subrata,
> >            As far as the actual issue is concerned, I think that the
> >         problem
> >         is that someone's exiting with exit(0) instead of tst_exit()...
> >         Thanks,
> >         -Garrett
> >
> >
> >     Thanks Garrett,
> >
> >     I will look into it.
> >
> >
> >     --
> >     "The Good You Do, The Best You GET"
> >
> >     Regards
> >     Srikanth Krishnakar
> >     **********************
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > "The Good You Do, The Best You GET"
> >
> > Regards
> > Srikanth Krishnakar
> > **********************
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008
> 30-Day
> > trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and
> focus on
> > what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with
> > Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltp-list mailing list
> > Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
> >
>
>
> --
> Michal Simek, Ing. (M.Eng)
> PetaLogix - Linux Solutions for a Reconfigurable World
> w: www.petalogix.com p: +61-7-30090663,+42-0-721842854 f: +61-7-30090663
>
>


-- 
"The Good You Do, The Best You GET"

Regards
Srikanth Krishnakar
**********************

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 11380 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] add_key01 & add_key02 test cases fails and shown as PASS in log file

[Mike Frysinger]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3153 bytes --]

On Monday 10 August 2009 11:44:57 Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:29 AM, srikanth krishnakar wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Subrata Modak wrote:
> >> On Fri, 2009-08-07 at 20:56 +0530, srikanth krishnakar wrote:
> >> > I see these two test cases are failing on PowerPC target (ppc440) as
> >> > shown in output file, but they are listed as PASS in log file of the
> >> > LTP :
> >> >
> >> > Target : PowerPC (ppc440)
> >> > Kernel: Linux-2.6.29
> >> > LTP Version : ltp-full-20090731
> >> >
> >> > LTP output file :
> >> > #############
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 1. add_key01
> >> > --------------------
> >> >
> >> > <<<test_start>>>
> >> > tag=add_key01 stime=1248549741
> >> > cmdline="add_key01"
> >> > contacts=""
> >> > analysis=exit
> >> > <<<test_output>>>
> >> > add_key01    1  TFAIL  :  add_key01 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
> >> > implemented
> >> > <<<execution_status>>>
> >> > initiation_status="ok"
> >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> >> > cutime=0 cstime=0
> >> > <<<test_end>>>
> >> >
> >> > 2. add_key02
> >> > ----------------------
> >> >
> >> > <<<test_start>>>
> >> > tag=add_key02 stime=1248549741
> >> > cmdline="add_key02"
> >> > contacts=""
> >> > analysis=exit
> >> > <<<test_output>>>
> >> > add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got
> >> > UNEXPECTED errno:38
> >> > add_key02    1  TFAIL  :  add_key02 failed - errno = 38 : Function not
> >> > implemented
> >> > <<<execution_status>>>
> >> > initiation_status="ok"
> >> > duration=0 termination_type=exited termination_id=0 corefile=no
> >> > cutime=0 cstime=1
> >> > <<<test_end>>>
> >> >
> >> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >> >
> >> > BUT the Log file shows as PASS to the above test cases :
> >> >
> >> > ###########################
> >> >
> >> > add_key01                      PASS       0
> >> > add_key02                      PASS       0
> >> >
> >> > ###########################
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > May anyone explain, why it is so ? Is it a known behaviour ?
> >>
> >> No. It is not. On my X_32, it passes fine.
> >
> > Is it PowePC target on which you have tested ?
> >
> >> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key01
> >> add_key01    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
> >> $ echo $?
> >> 0
> >> $ ./testcases/bin/add_key02
> >> add_key02    0  TINFO  :  call add_key() with wrong args got EXPECTED
> >> errno:22
> >> add_key02    1  TPASS  :  add_key call succeeded
> >> $ echo $?
> >> 0
> >> $ uname -a
> >> Linux 2.6.18-92.el5 #1 SMP Tue Apr 29 13:16:12 EDT 2008 i686 i686 i386
> >> GNU/Linux
>
> Hi Srikanth,
>     I think that the error is fairly intuitive (function not
> implemented). Are you sure that your subarchitecture supports
> add_key(2)?
> Hi Subrata,
>     As far as the actual issue is concerned, I think that the problem
> is that someone's exiting with exit(0) instead of tst_exit()...

and ENOSYS really should be TBROK or something, not TINFO+TPASS.  or this 
leads into a past thread where LTP handles this case inconsistently.
-mike

[-- Attachment #1.2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 836 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 355 bytes --]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let Crystal Reports handle the reporting - Free Crystal Reports 2008 30-Day 
trial. Simplify your report design, integration and deployment - and focus on 
what you do best, core application coding. Discover what's new with 
Crystal Reports now.  http://p.sf.net/sfu/bobj-july

[-- Attachment #3: Type: text/plain, Size: 155 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list