From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F071CC5478C for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:32:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 39DC23CEBF9 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:32:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C80973CE990 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:32:28 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-4.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [IPv6:2a07:de40:b251:101:10:150:64:1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD2081001F29 for ; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:32:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap2.dmz-prg2.suse.org [10.150.64.98]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D64F64E971; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:32:24 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1709562744; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=qJKewEg6Qhfb/VcnZJ/QFMJqmp2y6hc1KK+8qFJlZPU=; b=xqY4FZfNEcghfaky59ZbREoMO7KtnL1RgE/ksG/D5oZS+BfEyLaITwz20JYSjIY2gd/uk1 DrvtLfI7kIBEE7wJE+Gha36AvdOWphrFITG9NZTC90louuUv78BzBfpX07KNG6tYyice8K DV0rZbPT+vKnNnYmRRashTw+Bc23R6A= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1709562744; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=qJKewEg6Qhfb/VcnZJ/QFMJqmp2y6hc1KK+8qFJlZPU=; b=aGDe9FFH/j77GKjOHguhrKqMP/UcgZGnQy9IOlAkM4JBu52WWhUUYlm+ln9kRWVh+zs0TF 38fQGOnQu5m/zsCg== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1709562744; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=qJKewEg6Qhfb/VcnZJ/QFMJqmp2y6hc1KK+8qFJlZPU=; b=xqY4FZfNEcghfaky59ZbREoMO7KtnL1RgE/ksG/D5oZS+BfEyLaITwz20JYSjIY2gd/uk1 DrvtLfI7kIBEE7wJE+Gha36AvdOWphrFITG9NZTC90louuUv78BzBfpX07KNG6tYyice8K DV0rZbPT+vKnNnYmRRashTw+Bc23R6A= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1709562744; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=qJKewEg6Qhfb/VcnZJ/QFMJqmp2y6hc1KK+8qFJlZPU=; b=aGDe9FFH/j77GKjOHguhrKqMP/UcgZGnQy9IOlAkM4JBu52WWhUUYlm+ln9kRWVh+zs0TF 38fQGOnQu5m/zsCg== Received: from imap2.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9CC58139C6; Mon, 4 Mar 2024 14:32:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([10.150.64.162]) by imap2.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id QS+KI3jb5WVFXwAAn2gu4w (envelope-from ); Mon, 04 Mar 2024 14:32:24 +0000 Date: Mon, 4 Mar 2024 15:32:23 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20240304143223.GA3115761@pevik> References: <20240226153754.24998-1-andrea.cervesato@suse.de> <20240226153754.24998-3-andrea.cervesato@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.68 / 50.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; REPLY(-4.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; BAYES_HAM(-0.18)[70.43%] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-4.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] Add shmat04 SysV IPC bug reproducer X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > Hi! > > > Hmm, it's kind of ugly how we wrap the macro here like that... > > > What about we instead add debugging messages to all the SAFE_MACROS()? > > > Given that we added TDEBUG flag recently we can do soemthing as: > > > tst_res_(TDEBUG, file, lineno, "mprotect(%p, %d, %s)", > > > addr, size, prot_to_str(prot)); > > > To the SAFE_MPROTECT() and get the verbose output for free with verbose > > > flag passed to the test. > > > We can do that with all SAFE_MACROS() then we do not have to print most > > > of the messages in this test... > > Is this comment related with the previous patch of the set? > Not at all, I'm just complaining that we are adding debuging print to > the test itself when it would be much cleaner to put it into the test > library instead. +1, setting patchset as changes requested, please send v3. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp