From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <4F203F7F.70509@domain.hid> Date: Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:44:31 +0100 From: Gilles Chanteperdrix MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4F202C11.70908@domain.hid> <4F202F4E.6000708@domain.hid> <4F203237.2010102@domain.hid> <4F203353.8030302@domain.hid> <4F2035B6.6090105@domain.hid> <4F203771.6070708@domain.hid> In-Reply-To: <4F203771.6070708@domain.hid> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Xenomai-core] [PATCH] Add sigdebug unit test List-Id: Xenomai life and development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: xenomai-core On 01/25/2012 06:10 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: > On 2012-01-25 18:02, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> On 01/25/2012 05:52 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> On 2012-01-25 17:47, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>> On 2012-01-25 17:35, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>>> On 01/25/2012 05:21 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>>>>> We had two regressions in this code recently. So test all 6 possible >>>>>> SIGDEBUG reasons, or 5 if the watchdog is not available. >>>>> >>>>> Ok for this test, with a few remarks: >>>>> - this is a regression test, so should go to >>>>> src/testsuite/regression(/native), and should be added to the >>>>> xeno-regression-test >>>> >>>> What are unit test for (as they are defined here)? Looks a bit inconsistent. >> >> I put under "regression" all the tests I have which corresponded to >> things that failed one time or another in xenomai past. Maybe we could >> move unit tests under regression. >> >>>> >>>>> - we already have a regression test for the watchdog called mayday.c, >>>>> which tests the second watchdog action, please merge mayday.c with >>>>> sigdebug.c (mayday.c also allows checking the disassembly of the code in >>>>> the mayday page, a nice feature) >>>> >>>> It seems to have failed in that important last discipline. Need to check >>>> why. >>> >>> Because it didn't check the page content for correctness. But that's now >>> done via the new watchdog test. I can keep the debug output, but the >>> watchdog test of mayday looks obsolete to me. Am I missing something? >> >> The watchdog does two things: it first sends a SIGDEBUG, then if the >> application is still spinning, it sends a SIGSEGV. As far as I >> understood, you test tests the first case, and mayday tests the second >> case, so, I agree that mayday should be removed, but whatever it tests >> should be integrated in the sigdebug test. >> > > Err... SIGSEGV is not a feature, it was the bug I fixed today. :) So the > test case actually specified a bug as correct behavior. > > The fallback case is in fact killing the RT task as before. But I'm > unsure right now: will this leave the system always in a clean state > behind? The test case being a test case and doing nothing particular, I do not see what could go wrong. And if something goes wrong, then it needs fixing. -- Gilles.