public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] [RFC] zram01: Fix on ppc64le
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2017 15:56:48 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170209145648.GF12673@rei.lan> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <116936368.2235095.1486651688068.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com>

Hi!
> > 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.

Sorry I was blind. That makes much more sense. Let's go with that one,
instead of the:

"[LTP] [PATCH 1/6] tst_test: Allow priting TINFO without initialized IPC"

> > > > 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

That is still 39 occurences to fix all over the place plus the
compat_16.h header. Have a look at the patch I've just send, I think
that it's a bit easier than patching all the tests to avoids warnings...

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

  reply	other threads:[~2017-02-09 14:56 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
2017-02-09 14:56                   ` Cyril Hrubis [this message]
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=20170209145648.GF12673@rei.lan \
    --to=chrubis@suse.cz \
    --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