From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2 3/3] writev01: rewrite and drop partially valid iovec tests
Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2016 09:39:21 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <57FC9729.7000107@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20161010160346.GG1684@rei>
On 10/10/2016 06:03 PM, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
>> +
>> +static void test_writev(unsigned int i)
>> +{
>> + struct testcase_t *tcase = &testcases[i];
>> + int ret;
>> +
>> + TEST(writev(*(tcase->pfd), *(tcase->piovec), tcase->iovcnt));
>> +
>> + ret = (TEST_RETURN == tcase->exp_ret);
>> + if (TEST_RETURN < 0 || tcase->exp_ret < 0)
>> + ret &= (TEST_ERRNO == tcase->exp_errno);
>> +
>> + if (ret) {
>> + tst_res(TPASS | TTERRNO, "%s, ret: %ld", tcase->desc,
>> + TEST_RETURN);
>> + } else {
>> + tst_res(TPASS | TTERRNO, "%s, ret: %ld", tcase->desc,
> ^
> TFAIL?
>
>> + TEST_RETURN);
>> + }
>
> Also I would have created separate functions for failure/success tests
> so that we can print more informative results, i.e. include the expected
> errno in the TFAIL result message.
>
> Apart from that this is much better than the original.
>
How about:
static void test_writev(unsigned int i)
{
struct testcase_t *tcase = &testcases[i];
int ret;
TEST(writev(*(tcase->pfd), *(tcase->piovec), tcase->iovcnt));
ret = (TEST_RETURN == tcase->exp_ret);
if (TEST_RETURN < 0 || tcase->exp_ret < 0) {
ret &= (TEST_ERRNO == tcase->exp_errno);
tst_res((ret ? TPASS : TFAIL),
"%s, expected: %d (%s), got: %ld (%s)", tcase->desc,
tcase->exp_ret, tst_strerrno(tcase->exp_errno),
TEST_RETURN, tst_strerrno(TEST_ERRNO));
} else {
tst_res((ret ? TPASS : TFAIL),
"%s, expected: %d, got: %ld", tcase->desc,
tcase->exp_ret, TEST_RETURN);
}
}
$ ./writev01
tst_test.c:756: INFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
writev01.c:139: PASS: invalid iov_len, expected: -1 (EINVAL), got: -1 (EINVAL)
writev01.c:139: PASS: invalid fd, expected: -1 (EBADF), got: -1 (EBADF)
writev01.c:139: PASS: invalid iovcnt, expected: -1 (EINVAL), got: -1 (EINVAL)
writev01.c:143: PASS: zero iovcnt, expected: 0, got: 0
writev01.c:143: PASS: NULL and zero length iovec, expected: 64, got: 64
writev01.c:139: PASS: write to closed pipe, expected: -1 (EPIPE), got: -1 (EPIPE)
Regards,
Jan
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-10-11 7:39 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-10-07 8:11 [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/3] syscalls: new test writev07 Jan Stancek
2016-10-07 8:11 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/3] writev: remove writev03 and writev04 Jan Stancek
2016-10-07 8:11 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 3/3] writev01: rewrite and drop partially valid iovec tests Jan Stancek
2016-10-10 16:03 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-11 7:39 ` Jan Stancek [this message]
2016-10-11 8:41 ` Cyril Hrubis
2016-10-11 10:18 ` Jan Stancek
2016-10-10 15:54 ` [LTP] [PATCH v2 1/3] syscalls: new test writev07 Cyril Hrubis
2016-12-01 6:36 ` Cui Bixuan
2016-12-01 7:36 ` Jan Stancek
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=57FC9729.7000107@redhat.com \
--to=jstancek@redhat.com \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/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.