From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Fri, 24 Apr 2020 14:11:16 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] net/sendfile01.sh: Check with timeout In-Reply-To: <20200423221245.GA1391884@x230> References: <20200421180002.11351-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20200423221245.GA1391884@x230> Message-ID: <20200424121116.GA25613@dell5510> 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. Actually, I now consider a bit cleaner and safer solution to *not* use eval and require test to specify function. E.g.: +retry_fnc() +{ + tst_rhost_run -c 'ss -ltp' | grep -q "$port.*testsf" +} + do_setup() { @@ -28,7 +33,7 @@ do_setup() tst_rhost_run -s -b -c "$server $(tst_ipaddr rhost) $port" server_started=1 tst_res TINFO "wait for the server to start" - sleep 1 + TST_RETRY_FUNC retry_fnc 0 } Instead of simple: do_setup() @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ do_setup() tst_rhost_run -s -b -c "$server $(tst_ipaddr rhost) $port" server_started=1 tst_res TINFO "wait for the server to start" - sleep 1 + TST_RETRY_FUNC "tst_rhost_run -c 'ss -ltp' | grep -q '$port.*testsf'" 0 } But I don't have strong opinion on it. Cyril, Li, any preference? Kind regards, Petr > > 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 ...