From: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] zram01: Fix on ppc64le
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 09:48:08 -0500 (EST) [thread overview]
Message-ID: <116936368.2235095.1486651688068.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170209140042.GE12673@rei.lan>
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Cyril Hrubis" <chrubis@suse.cz>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstancek@redhat.com>
> Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it
> Sent: Thursday, 9 February, 2017 3:00:42 PM
> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] zram01: Fix on ppc64le
>
> Hi!
> > > > There is still one unsolved problem since the TWARN messages from the
> > > > tst_device.c will trigger TBROK in tst_test.c since the IPC is not
> > > > initialized. I'm still unsure how to fix that, maybe we should allow to
> > > > allocate non-shared structure for the results in the special case that
> > > > the library code is being reused in shell helpers.
> > >
> > > Maybe we should just add an API to redirect tst_brk() and tst_res() so
> > > that we could use library code in the various non-test utilities.
> >
> > Or drop that TBROK?
>
> It's especially there for code that defines TST_NO_DEFAULT_MAIN but one
> can argue that this is special case and if you define that macro you
> should know what you are doing anyway...
>
> But still I prefer to throw error message instead of segfaulting while
> trying to deference NULL pointer.
I was suggesting we skip update_results(), not to let it segfault.
>
> > > Maybe
> > > we could patch things up so that we could use SAFE_MACROS() in cleanup
> > > as well...
> >
> > This should be doable with some flag we set in do_test_cleanup(), to skip
> > further calls.
>
> I'm nearly finished with RFC patch. The main problem is the
> __attribute__((noreturn)) that has been added for various tst_brk*
> variants. So in the end it looks like only solution is to do the
> tst_brk_() redirection in the safe_macros.c, since we cannot return from
> tst_brkm_() since the return address is not stored on stack because it
> has noreturn attribute. And dropping the noreturn attribute from
> tst_brkm_() is not an option either, since that generates a ton of
> "control reaches end of non-void function" warnings.
Vast majority is from single header file:
$ grep "reaches end of non-void" log.txt | sort | uniq | wc -l
328
$ grep "reaches end of non-void" log.txt | sort | uniq | grep compat_16.h | wc -l
289
>
> But it's quite easy to define a macro or two that does the same
> redirection as we do in tst_brkm_() so that we never reach the oldlib
> code from safe_macros.c if newlib test is running.
>
> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz
>
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-09 14:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-01-31 13:44 [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] zram01: Fix on ppc64le Cyril Hrubis
2017-01-31 16:14 ` Jan Stancek
2017-02-01 9:45 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-02-01 10:59 ` Jan Stancek
2017-02-02 15:22 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-02-08 11:10 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-02-09 12:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-02-09 13:24 ` Jan Stancek
2017-02-09 14:00 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-02-09 14:48 ` Jan Stancek [this message]
2017-02-09 14:56 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-08-15 9:23 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-08-15 11:44 ` Jan Stancek
2017-08-15 12:38 ` Cyril Hrubis
2017-08-15 12:48 ` Jan Stancek
2017-08-15 12:57 ` Cyril Hrubis
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=116936368.2235095.1486651688068.JavaMail.zimbra@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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox