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

Christopher Yeoh
2012-05-18T08:36:01Z

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
--
cyeoh@au.ibm.com

--
cyeoh@au.ibm.com