Re: [LTP] "nanosleep{02～04}" testcase failed

["Mitani" <mitani@ryobi.co.jp>]

I revised patch into "WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0", and tried to test.
After that, "nanosleep" could work correctly.
I agree with your proposal. 

Thank you for your help!

-Tomonori Mitani

-----Original Message-----
From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:yanegomi@gmail.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2009 11:45 AM
To: Mitani
Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [LTP] "nanosleep{02～04}" testcase failed

2009/12/20 Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp>:
> Hi,
>
> I found that "nanosleep{02～04}" testcase failed like follow example.
> ----------
> nanosleep02    1  TFAIL  :  child process exited abnormally
> ----------
>
> In ${LTPROOT}/testcases/kernel/syscalls/nanosleep/nanosleep{02～04}.c,
> WEXITSTATUS(status) is used to judge whether child process did exit
> normally.
> But WEXITSTATUS macro is used only when WIFEXITED macro returned "true".
> So, it cannot get the correct results and it terminated with the above
> error.
>
> To solve this problem, I thought that we had better use WIFEXITED macro
> instead of the WEXITSTATUS macro.
> Here are patches to fix these problem:
> ============
> --- nanosleep02.c       2009-11-02 22:57:17.000000000 +0900
> +++ nanosleep02.c.new   2009-12-21 14:15:19.000000000 +0900
> @@ -162,10 +162,10 @@
>
>                /* Wait for child to execute */
>                wait(&status);
> -               if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0) {
> +               if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
>                        tst_resm(TPASS, "Functionality of nanosleep() "
>                                 "is correct");
> -               } else if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 1) {
> +               } else if (!WIFEXITED(status)) {
>                        tst_resm(TFAIL, "child process exited abnormally");
>                }
>        }                       /* End for TEST_LOOPING */
>
> ============
>
> ============
> --- nanosleep03.c       2009-11-02 22:57:17.000000000 +0900
> +++ nanosleep03.c.new   2009-12-21 15:03:52.000000000 +0900
> @@ -143,10 +143,10 @@
>
>                /* Wait for child to execute */
>                wait(&status);
> -               if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0) {
> +               if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
>                        tst_resm(TPASS, "nanosleep() fails, interrupted"
>                                 " by signal, error:%d", EINTR);
> -               } else if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 1) {
> +               } else if (!WIFEXITED(status)) {
>                        tst_resm(TFAIL, "child process exited abnormally");
>                }
>        }                       /* End for TEST_LOOPING */
>
> ============
>
> ============
> --- nanosleep04.c       2009-11-02 22:57:17.000000000 +0900
> +++ nanosleep04.c.new   2009-12-21 15:04:24.000000000 +0900
> @@ -147,10 +147,10 @@
>
>                /* Wait for child to execute */
>                wait(&status);
> -               if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0) {
> +               if (WIFEXITED(status)) {
>                        tst_resm(TPASS, "nanosleep() fails, invalid pause "
>                                 "time, error:%d", EINVAL);
> -               } else if (WEXITSTATUS(status) == 1) {
> +               } else if (!WIFEXITED(status)) {
>                        tst_resm(TFAIL, "child process exited abnormally");
>                }
>        }                       /* End for TEST_LOOPING */
> ============

I agree that the test's validation step is written incorrectly, as per
the wait(2) manpage:


       WIFEXITED(status)
              returns true if the child terminated normally, that is, by call-
              ing exit(3) or _exit(2), or by returning from main().

       WEXITSTATUS(status)
              returns the exit status of the  child.   This  consists  of  the
              least  significant  8 bits of the status argument that the child
              specified in a call to exit(3) or _exit(2) or  as  the  argument
              for  a  return  statement  in main().  This macro should only be
              employed if WIFEXITED returned true.

    in particular the precondition for calling WEXITSTATUS, but should
it be WIFEXITED(status) && WEXITSTATUS(status) == 0 => PASS, else
FAIL?

Thanks,
-Garrett



------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Verizon Developer Community
Take advantage of Verizon's best-in-class app development support
A streamlined, 14 day to market process makes app distribution fast and easy
Join now and get one step closer to millions of Verizon customers
http://p.sf.net/sfu/verizon-dev2dev 
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list