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 CB2B9D42BAF for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:05:56 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA6973D6109 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:05:54 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::6]) (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 88B1A3D60F0 for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:05:38 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-6.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=pvorel@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (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-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9A7B3143985A for ; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:05:36 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (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 BEBEE21263; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:05:35 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1731431135; 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=GQzbQIxt03iCmFxjLTE11D/ZgQrouBWkrZznRhpgl3s=; b=Oe7a3tJV9PEIKh+8loLoBy431Ki3IoY9uo5uvXiHMViSoCna4utZVo+2JDot7I8xD9wPPL L0QQXdzHyQdCw0lm+xjo2EFQGneHFz7APqy3E5hzrKk5YauqA2nUefyDMAeLTBqRkls4Gb Tud3MDD1gAYkj+fur8PHimM3bIHbbNY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1731431135; 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=GQzbQIxt03iCmFxjLTE11D/ZgQrouBWkrZznRhpgl3s=; b=pyHiZ15EUKv6ul6uxVVA39jA5n1wvHcIMzPK3s/ZDW5/NBhlrxLR7+1HGQLWZ7UauQFTmr aovG7N862JUohMBA== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1731431135; 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=GQzbQIxt03iCmFxjLTE11D/ZgQrouBWkrZznRhpgl3s=; b=Oe7a3tJV9PEIKh+8loLoBy431Ki3IoY9uo5uvXiHMViSoCna4utZVo+2JDot7I8xD9wPPL L0QQXdzHyQdCw0lm+xjo2EFQGneHFz7APqy3E5hzrKk5YauqA2nUefyDMAeLTBqRkls4Gb Tud3MDD1gAYkj+fur8PHimM3bIHbbNY= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1731431135; 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=GQzbQIxt03iCmFxjLTE11D/ZgQrouBWkrZznRhpgl3s=; b=pyHiZ15EUKv6ul6uxVVA39jA5n1wvHcIMzPK3s/ZDW5/NBhlrxLR7+1HGQLWZ7UauQFTmr aovG7N862JUohMBA== Received: from imap1.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 imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 98EC213301; Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:05:35 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id P0QYJN+KM2d6KwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Tue, 12 Nov 2024 17:05:35 +0000 Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2024 18:05:34 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: <20241112170534.GA153227@pevik> References: <20241111143609.185692-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20241112110052.GA208695@pevik> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.50 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; HAS_REPLYTO(0.30)[pvorel@suse.cz]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo]; REPLYTO_EQ_FROM(0.00)[] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] syscalls: Add missing WEXITSTATUS() check 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 Cyril, ... > > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise08.c > > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/madvise/madvise08.c > > > @@ -165,7 +165,7 @@ static pid_t run_child(int advice) > > > fmem, > > > FMEMSIZE, > > > advstr); > > > - exit(1); > > > + exit(0); > > > } > > > abort(); > > > } > > Good catch, thanks! > > Maybe it'd be more logical to keep exit(1) (it's error) and check against > > WEXITSTATUS(status) == 1, but it's a minor detail, let's keep exit(0). > I wouldn't do so, as it may confuse people into thinking that the return > value actually carries any information, which it does not since the > failure has been already reported. I would just stick to exit(0) which > makes it more clear that we just need to exit the process, nothing more. This makes sense, kept it this way. > > Can I merge with your RBT? > Yes, with the fix above. Thanks, merged. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp