From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TQp8X-0003b0-J2 for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:47:57 +0000 Received: from [222.73.24.84] (helo=song.cn.fujitsu.com) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1TQp8T-0003OE-5G for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 00:47:57 +0000 Message-ID: <50873A3B.3030209@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 08:45:47 +0800 From: Wanlong Gao MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <3ED83A9DB3B6D94CA68BF7C03F2981D35D01C266B4@EXDCVYMBSTM006.EQ1STM.local> <5086654E.1010303@cn.fujitsu.com> <3ED83A9DB3B6D94CA68BF7C03F2981D35D01C26723@EXDCVYMBSTM006.EQ1STM.local> In-Reply-To: <3ED83A9DB3B6D94CA68BF7C03F2981D35D01C26723@EXDCVYMBSTM006.EQ1STM.local> Subject: Re: [LTP] Regarding shmat01 syscall test Reply-To: gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com List-Id: Linux Test Project General Discussions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-list-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net To: Om Prakash PAL Cc: "ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net" On 10/23/2012 06:05 PM, Om Prakash PAL wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wanlong Gao [mailto:gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com] > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2012 3:07 PM > To: Om Prakash PAL > Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [LTP] Regarding shmat01 syscall test > > On 10/23/2012 05:24 PM, Om Prakash PAL wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am working on syscall test: shmat01.c >> >> I have some confusion: >> >> >> >> In setup() : it is allocating shared memory by shmget() and then attaching by shmat() and after that detaching the attached address (i.e. shmdt()) >> >> >> >> if (shmdt((const void *)base_addr) == -1) { >> >> tst_brkm(TBROK, cleanup, "Couldn't detach shared memory"); >> >> } >> >> >> >> And again in main function it is using same "base_addr" as attaching address, >> >> >> >> addr = shmat(*(TC[i].shmid), base_addr+TC[i].offset, >> >> TC[i].flags); >> >> how can we ensure(100%) that base_addr (virtual) will be free till this point for attaching?. > > Maybe we can't, but I didn't see any fail on this. Did you see any testing failure here? > > Yes, I got some failure and the reason of failure is : the address at which we want to attach is busy. OK, please feel free to send a patch, or can you tell us how to reproduce it? Thanks, Wanlong Gao > > Best Regards, > Om Prakash Pal > > > > Thanks, > Wanlong Gao > >> >> there is possibility that this address(base_addr) will be used, so in that case this shmat() will fail. >> >> Please correct me if I am wrong. >> >> Thanks in advance. >> >> >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Om Prakash Pal >> >> >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. >> Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics >> Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: >> http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Ltp-list mailing list >> Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net >> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Everyone hates slow websites. So do we. Make your web apps faster with AppDynamics Download AppDynamics Lite for free today: http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_sfd2d_oct _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list