From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 00:12:45 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] net/sendfile01.sh: Check with timeout In-Reply-To: References: <20200421180002.11351-1-pvorel@suse.cz> Message-ID: <20200423221245.GA1391884@x230> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Alexey, > > I guess nothing controversial here as failure of starting server is > > guarded by -s. > > I was thinking about using TST_RETRY_FUNC, but passing command to it > > leads to: tst_rhost_run: unknown option: l > Hi Petr, > eval might help in this case, take a look at tst_retry() in test.sh Good point. > old api, not sure why exactly it was removed in the new one... It was designed from scratch I guess. But this patch makes sense to me, I'll test it tomorrow. > index 1d8a71d9f..e34edb26a 100644 > --- a/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh > +++ b/testcases/lib/tst_test.sh > @@ -207,7 +207,7 @@ TST_RETRY_FN_EXP_BACKOFF() > fi > while true; do > - $tst_fun > + eval "$tst_fun" > if [ "$?" = "$tst_exp" ]; then > break > fi > > What bothers me more, that TST_NEEDS_CMDS does not check command on > > rhost. Do we want to have something like TST_NEEDS_CMDS_RHOST or we just > > don't care? > In general, yes, we need to check if a command exists on the remote host. > Yet another variable, what about checking what in TST_NEEDS_CMDS on the > remote host? Though TST_NEEDS_CMDS_RHOST looks quite well. In this case ss was needed only on rhost. I don't know if SUT in two hosts configurations (ssh/rsh) are identical. If yes, it'd be enough just to check TST_NEEDS_CMDS also on rhost. I'm for this variant as it's a simpler change. I'll send a patch tomorrow. Kind regards, Petr