From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1Ujnrn-0001qN-LK for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:49:23 +0000 Received: from [222.73.24.84] (helo=song.cn.fujitsu.com) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1Ujnrm-0001qu-6N for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Tue, 04 Jun 2013 09:49:23 +0000 Message-ID: <51ADB77E.7070105@cn.fujitsu.com> Date: Tue, 04 Jun 2013 17:46:38 +0800 From: DAN LI 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> <51AD9784.3080605@casparzhang.com> In-Reply-To: <51AD9784.3080605@casparzhang.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: Caspar Zhang Cc: LTP list On 06/04/2013 03:30 PM, Caspar Zhang wrote: > 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? Do you have any idea about how or what i can use to fill memory and keep away from the OOM-kill, when trigger this SIGSEGV? :) Regards, DAN LI > > 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