Re: [LTP] [PATCH] Simple tests for cross memory attach (process_vm_[readv|writev] syscalls)

Caspar Zhang
2012-07-11T10:15:02Z

On 05/18/2012 04:35 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote:
> On Tue, 15 May 2012 10:56:17 -0400 (EDT)
> Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I looked at testcases sent by Chris. Good news is, they
>> do not overlap (in terms of functionality) with mine :-).
>>
>> The patch need some polishing to match the style guide:
>> - indentation
>> - I think output should be TINFO, rather than plain printf
>> - single statement if without { }
>> - I would split some code to more functions, for example
>> process_vm_writev01.c main function seems complex
>
> Thanks for the feedback. I'll have a go at reworking them.
>
>> As for test organization, I think we need to decide 2 issues:
>> 1. directory structure
>> a)
>> testcases/kernel/syscalls/cma/
>> testcases/kernel/syscalls/cma/process_vm_readv
>> testcases/kernel/syscalls/cma/process_vm_writev
>> b)
>> testcases/kernel/syscalls/process_vm_readv
>> testcases/kernel/syscalls/process_vm_writev
>>
>> I'm preferring a) as these 2 syscalls are closely related,
>> and we already have need to share code.
>
> that would be fine with me.
>
>> 2. how to invoke new syscalls
>> a)
>> Patch from Chris is defining new syscall numbers in test and
>> using syscall(2).
>>
>> b)
>> My patch adds configure check for glibc wrappers
>> process_vm_readv/writev and if those does not exists it checks for
>> __NR_process_vm_readv.
>>
>> I think we should not define syscall numbers in tests directly,
>> but I'm relying on LTP maintainers to provide guidance here.
>
> I agree - the configure check is much better. I was just trying to get
> something working :-)
>
> Regards,
>
> Chris
>

Hi Chris, not sure if you're working on a v2 to these CMA simple tests,
if not, mind /me doing some update based on your version?

Thanks,
Caspar