From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1P5vD6-0000pq-9S for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:53:12 +0000 Received: from e5.ny.us.ibm.com ([32.97.182.145]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.69) id 1P5vD5-0001SH-6h for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 06:53:12 +0000 Received: from d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (d01relay04.pok.ibm.com [9.56.227.236]) by e5.ny.us.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1) with ESMTP id o9D6WYs8007468 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 02:32:34 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (d03av03.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.169]) by d01relay04.pok.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id o9D6r5p7132752 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 02:53:05 -0400 Received: from d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av03.boulder.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id o9D6r4Am028479 for ; Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:53:04 -0600 From: Subrata Modak In-Reply-To: References: Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:22:45 +0530 Message-Id: <1286952767.4893.3.camel@subratamodak.linux.ibm.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [LTP] Patch to record kernel dump message to each testcases log Reply-To: subrata@linux.vnet.ibm.com List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: hake huang Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net On Wed, 2010-10-13 at 13:30 +0800, hake huang wrote: > 2010/10/13 Garrett Cooper > > > > On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:38 PM, hake huang wrote: > > > Hi > > > > > > I see this simple solution is no quite fit. But the kernel dump message for > > > each test case is necessary for analysing. I can work on this further, with > > > below help: > > > 1. Where can I find the reason for the IIRC break? > > > > IIRC -> If I remember correctly. > so I need ask Subrata about this problem, right? what is the existing > functionality? I believe the functionality your original patch was proposing is already in LTP . I guess they will solve your problem. See the following commits: git show e3bc3758d3e4d17a0e04009ef873df53819b9ec6 git show bd9d440be1da8020c93ac92e497e3a16e66e9fa3 Just use: ./runltp -K option while running ltp. Regards-- Subrata > > > > > 2. Can it be an option to avoid the size limitation on some embedded > > > system? > > > > No. This is outside the realm of LTP, but we must remain conscious of > > the fact that there are folks running LTP on cellphones, etc, where > > space is very much a luxury. > I see. but why can't they run in quit_mode? > > > > > 3. A kind of seperating tag is needed for kernel message, right? e.g > > > dump message > > > > I think that adding an optional capture feature might be worthwhile, > > but you'll no doubt quickly find with some processes that the dmesg > > buffer will fill up quickly. > I have seen such events, and such cases need to be checked manually. > > > > > 4. I see in ltp-pan.c the file descriptors, terminals are changed in child > > > process. if the system(3) has problem, the worst cases is there are no > > > kernel messge output in parent process, but the pan can still function well. > > > > Can you say that with 100% certainty? One of the potential problems > > with system is the fact that it allocates a shell and depending on how > > processes are executed and how file descriptors are cleaned up, > > > > Actually, pan makes zero attempts at closing open file descriptors and > > the like, so the problem is still very much with pan. > > > So your concerns is about file descriptors which open in ltp process, > I think this is an existing problem. I mean maybe pan need to attempt > to close open file descriptors. system(3) only increases the change of > occurrence caused by this problem, right? > > > if not use system(3), can you give your suggestion on this, exec(3) seems to > > > have the same problem as system(3)? > > > > Yes and no. In this case the problems that exist with open file > > descriptor inheritance, etc are unfortunately no worse from that > > perspective than your proposed code would do, but there are still > > other problems that need to be resolved with your proposed change > > anyhow that are much more pressing. > > > > -Garrett ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Beautiful is writing same markup. Internet Explorer 9 supports standards for HTML5, CSS3, SVG 1.1, ECMAScript5, and DOM L2 & L3. Spend less time writing and rewriting code and more time creating great experiences on the web. Be a part of the beta today. http://p.sf.net/sfu/beautyoftheweb _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list