public inbox for ltp@lists.linux.it
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] lsmod01.sh: retry test couple times to lower false positives
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2019 14:19:03 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20191023121901.GA25868@dell5510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <c8843f2f4a325e820d030d9c7c36d7624f1baa82.1571393044.git.jstancek@redhat.com>

Hi Jan,

...
> -lsmod_test()
> +lsmod_matches_proc_modules()
>  {
>  	lsmod_output=$(lsmod | awk '!/Module/{print $1, $2, $3}' | sort)
>  	if [ -z "$lsmod_output" ]; then
> -		tst_res TFAIL "Failed to parse the output from lsmod"
> -		return
> +		tst_brk TBROK "Failed to parse the output from lsmod"
>  	fi

> -	modules_output=$(awk '{print $1, $2, $3}' /proc/modules | sort)
> +	modules_output=$(awk '{print $1, $2, $3} 1' /proc/modules | sort)
>  	if [ -z "$modules_output" ]; then
> -		tst_res TFAIL "Failed to parse /proc/modules"
> -		return
> +		tst_brk TBROK "Failed to parse /proc/modules"
>  	fi

>  	if [ "$lsmod_output" != "$modules_output" ]; then
> -		tst_res TFAIL "lsmod output different from /proc/modules."
> +		tst_res TINFO "lsmod output different from /proc/modules."

>  		echo "$lsmod_output" > temp1
>  		echo "$modules_output" > temp2
>  		diff temp1 temp2

> -		return
> +		return 1
>  	fi
> +	return 0
> +}

> -	tst_res TPASS "'lsmod' passed."
> +lsmod_test()
> +{
> +	for i in $(seq 1 5); do
> +		if lsmod_matches_proc_modules; then
> +			tst_res TPASS "'lsmod' passed."
> +			return
> +		fi
> +		tst_res TINFO "Trying again"
> +		sleep 1
> +	done
This is similar pattern to TST_RETRY_FUNC()/TST_RETRY_FN_EXP_BACKOFF()
(for both shell and C). I wonder if we also have use for TPASS/TFAIL
instead of just TBROK and specifying number of tries instead of time to be
setup.
C and shell usage is a bit different, so maybe
TST_RETRY_FUNC()/TST_RETRY_FN_EXP_BACKOFF() doesn't make much sense for shell
(actually nothing uses them in shell) and I don't see much usage for my proposal
in C.

> +	tst_res TFAIL "'lsmod' doesn't match /proc/modules output"

+ we forget to use local (for lsmod_outputa and i), but that's not that
important.

Kind regards,
Petr

  parent reply	other threads:[~2019-10-23 12:19 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2019-10-18 10:05 [LTP] [PATCH] lsmod01.sh: retry test couple times to lower false positives Jan Stancek
2019-10-18 13:23 ` Petr Vorel
2019-10-18 13:27   ` Jan Stancek
2019-10-18 13:45 ` Petr Vorel
2019-10-22  7:10   ` Jan Stancek
2019-10-23 12:19 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2019-10-23 13:28   ` Jan Stancek
2019-10-23 18:28     ` Petr Vorel
2019-10-24  4:47       ` Li Wang
2019-10-24  7:49         ` Petr Vorel
2019-10-24  7:12       ` Jan Stancek

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=20191023121901.GA25868@dell5510 \
    --to=pvorel@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