From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Ujlnm-0002SV-HT for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:37:06 +0000 Received: from mail-pb0-f53.google.com ([209.85.160.53]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1Ujlnl-0001jD-2G for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 07:37:06 +0000 Received: by mail-pb0-f53.google.com with SMTP id un4so6870513pbc.12 for ; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 00:36:59 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <51AD9784.3080605@casparzhang.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 15:30:12 +0800 From: Caspar Zhang MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <51A5C347.4020202@cn.fujitsu.com> <1098836685.51729.1369819107988.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <51A5D7A9.3070801@cn.fujitsu.com> <577470418.347391.1369824283490.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> <51A84F5A.9060708@cn.fujitsu.com> <1492205844.3281606.1370292459997.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1492205844.3281606.1370292459997.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] shmget/shmget01.c: cleanup and attach SHM_NORESERVE to shmflg 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: Jan Stancek Cc: LTP list On 06/04/2013 04:47 AM, Jan Stancek wrote: >>>>>> > >>>> >>>>>> > >>>>3. Add SHM_NORESERVE to shmflg to test >>>>> > >>> >>>>> > >>>Can you add some description why you are adding this flag? >>>> > >> >>>> > >>Actually, we are trying to complete test cases and expand >>>> > >>the test scope of LTP. >>>> > >> >>>> > >>So, it is just for completeness of this case. >>> > > >>> > >My concern here is: >>> > >So if we add this flag, we cover SHM_NORESERVE path. >>> > >Do we have a testcase which still covers current non-SHM_NORESERVE path? >> > >> >Hi Jan, >> > >> >Sorry for the late reply.:) >> > >> >In my opinion, SHM_NORESERVE is an independent feature of others and should >> >have >> >no effect on them, so we do not need a non-SHM_NORESERVE path. >> >They are like two branches of a river, one branch can do nothing on the other >> >one, >> >but if either of them goes wrong, the river will get feedback. > Presence of that flag has some effect, absence has different one. > To follow up on river metaphore, Are crocodiles in this river? > > Anyway, we cover that path in other testcases, so unless > someone else objects, I'm OK with adding that flag. > Crocodile spotted: in fact in this patch, SHM_NORESERVE doesn't get fully tested. from the man page: SHM_NORESERVE (since Linux 2.6.15) [snip]When swap space is not reserved one might get SIGSEGV upon a write if no physical memory is available. [snip] We could design such a new testcase if we really want to cover the SHM_NORESERVE branch of river (and the RESERVE branch as well) by set the flag and fill the memory, check the result to see if a SIGSEGV is triggered. Thoughts? Caspar ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ How ServiceNow helps IT people transform IT departments: 1. A cloud service to automate IT design, transition and operations 2. Dashboards that offer high-level views of enterprise services 3. A single system of record for all IT processes http://p.sf.net/sfu/servicenow-d2d-j _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list