From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Sandeep Patil <sspatil@android.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:41:48 +0800
Subject: [LTP] [RFC PATCH 0/1] Fix return value checks for posix apis
In-Reply-To: <20190520094949.GA25405@rei.lan>
References: <20190520041730.28238-1-sspatil@android.com>
 <20190520094949.GA25405@rei.lan>
Message-ID: <20190521044148.GC7753@google.com>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

On Mon, May 20, 2019 at 11:49:49AM +0200, Cyril Hrubis wrote:
> Hi!
> > This is an RFC patch to demonstrate that most of the pthread_* calls
> > in the open_posix_testsuite seem to be doing the return value checks
> > incorrectly. Most posix_* apis return positive errno on failure and 0 on
> > success.
> 
> This is unfortunately common misconception, also I guess you meant
> pthread_* APIs here.

yes, pthread_* APIs.

> 
> > PATCH 1/1 demonstrates the fixes needed for pthread_sigmask/6-1 for
> > example. This pattern is fairly widespread in open_posix_testsuite.
> > 
> > After going through the documentation in the project, I wasn't sure if I
> > tested this correctly. After building, I tried the following
> > 
> > $ cd testcases/open_posix_testsuite
> > $ ./bin/run_tesit.sh conformance/interfaces/pthread_sigmask pthread_sigmask_6-1.run-test
> > 
> > ...and that keeps running into test being skipped due to missing file.
> > (I do have pthread_sigmask_6-1.run-test in place).
> 
> Actually I always just run the binary, so in this case doing
> ./pthread_sigmask_6-1.run-test should suffice.

Ok, I'll try that, but IIRC it did nothing on my laptop. I'll retry.

> 
> > So, consider this build tested only for now. I'd love to know how we can
> > test this and if we are still using the testsuite, then I am happy to
> > fix rest of the places where its broken.
> 
> Sounds good.

Thanks for the review.

- ssp