Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fix "hugetlb" several tests

Garrett Cooper
2010-04-15T08:42:44Z

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 11:54 PM, Rishikesh K Rajak
<risrajak@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 09:56:22AM +0900, Mitani wrote:
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:yanegomi@gmail.com]
>> > Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 6:31 PM
>> > To: Mitani
>> > Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
>> > Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fix "hugetlb" several tests
>> >
>> > On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 1:58 AM, Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> wrote:
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: Garrett Cooper [mailto:yanegomi@gmail.com]
>> > >> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 3:18 PM
>> > >> To: Mitani
>> > >> Cc: Randy Dunlap; ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
>> > >> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fix "hugetlb" several tests
>> > >>
>> > >> On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp> wrote:
>> > >> > Hi Randy,
>> > >> >
>> > >> > I couldn't notice a misspelling. Sorry.
>> > >> > I decided to use "due to" according to your advice.
>> > >> >
>> > >> > May I suggest revised patch?
>> > >> >
>> > > [...]
>> > >> >
>> > >> > Thank you--
>> > >> >
>> > >> > -Tomonori Mitani
>> > >> >
>> > >> >
>> > >> >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> >> From: Randy Dunlap [mailto:rdunlap@xenotime.net]
>> > >> >> Sent: Wednesday, April 14, 2010 12:04 AM
>> > >> >> To: Mitani
>> > >> >> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
>> > >> >> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] fix "hugetlb" several tests
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> On 04/12/10 23:58, Mitani wrote:
>> > >> >> > ------------
>> > >> >> >  a) All tests:
>> > >> >> > "TBROK  :  Test cannot be continued owning to sufficient
>> > >> >> availability of
>> > >> >> > Hugepages on the system"
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >  b) 2), 3), 5), 6), 8), 10), 11) tests:
>> > >> >> > "TWARN  :  tst_rmdir(): TESTDIR was NULL; no removal
>> > attempted"
>> > >> >> > ------------
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Both case a) and case b) are caused by the same reason.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > All of case a) failures occured at the following points (for
>> > >> example
>> > >> >> > hugemmap04):
>> > >> >> > ------------<hugemmap04.c - main()>
>> > >> >> >         /* Check number of hugepages */
>> > >> >> >         if (get_no_of_hugepages() <= 0 || hugepages_size()
>> > <=
>> > >> 0)
>> > >> >> >                 tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "Test cannot be
>> > >> continued
>> > >> >> owning to
>> > >> >> > \
>> > >> >> >                                 sufficient availability
>> > of
>> > >> >> Hugepages on the
>> > >> >> > system");
>> > >> >> > ------------
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > I found out that "HugePages_Total" parameter of "/proc/meminfo"
>> > >> file
>> > >> >> > is set to "0". This caused above TBROK failure. It is environment
>> > >> >> problem.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > But, in this case, tests must not return with TBROK, but with
>> > TCONF,
>> > >> >> > I think.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> That makes sense to me.
>> > >> >>
>> > >> >> > And, in case b), these tests try to delete "TESTDIR" directory
>> > >> by
>> > >> >> > calling "tst_rmdir()" function in "cleanup()" function.
>> > >> >> > But, "TESTDIR" never set if "tst_tmpdir()" function isn't
>> > called.
>> > >> >> > I think that case b)'s tests must not call cleanup() function.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > I want to suggest following patch.
>> > >> >> >
>> > >> >> > Signed-off-by: Tomonori Mitani <mitani@ryobi.co.jp>
>> >
>> >     Sorry to ask again, but Gmail always mangles patches. Could you
>> > please attach it as a file?
>> > Thanks,
>> > -Garrett
>>
>>
>> Sorry.
>> I attach a patch file.
>
>
> Applied to next branch. Will wait for someone to Acked/test it before merging to
> master.

Inspecting the files more closely, here all cases should be
tst_exit, not cleanup. Otherwise it's going to do some operations not
required as setup hasn't be run yet.
Thanks,
-Garrett