* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] Remove break after return
2019-03-28 10:50 [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] Remove break after return Petr Vorel
@ 2019-03-28 10:59 ` Enji Cooper
2019-03-29 3:04 ` Xiao Yang
2019-04-05 3:22 ` Xiao Yang
2 siblings, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Enji Cooper @ 2019-03-28 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
LGTM!
Reviewed-by: Enji Cooper <yaneurabeya@gmail.com>
> On Mar 28, 2019, at 03:50, Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
>
> Reported-by: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> ---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h | 1 -
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c | 3 ---
> 2 files changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h
> index b19a1d1bf..29ebbc5ee 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h
> @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ static int do_select(int nfds, fd_set *readfds, fd_set *writefds, fd_set *except
> switch (tst_variant) {
> case 0:
> return select(nfds, readfds, writefds, exceptfds, timeout);
> - break;
> case 1: {
> #ifdef __LP64__
> return tst_syscall(__NR_select, nfds, readfds, writefds, exceptfds, timeout);
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c
> index ce0d2ff79..d75807d77 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c
> @@ -37,13 +37,10 @@ static int tested_sigpending(sigset_t *sigset)
> switch (tst_variant) {
> case 0:
> return sigpending(sigset);
> - break;
> case 1:
> return tst_syscall(__NR_sigpending, sigset);
> - break;
> case 2:
> return tst_syscall(__NR_rt_sigpending, sigset, SIGSETSIZE);
> - break;
> }
> return -1;
> }
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>
> --
> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] Remove break after return
2019-03-28 10:50 [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] Remove break after return Petr Vorel
2019-03-28 10:59 ` Enji Cooper
@ 2019-03-29 3:04 ` Xiao Yang
2019-04-03 12:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-04-05 3:22 ` Xiao Yang
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Xiao Yang @ 2019-03-29 3:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi Petr,
Thanks for your cleanup. :-)
Can we also remove break after calling tst_brk()?
For example:
1) The code at do_select(...) in select_var.h
-------------------------------------------------
case 3:
#ifdef __NR__newselect
return tst_syscall(__NR__newselect, nfds, readfds, writefds, exceptfds,
timeout);
#else
tst_brk(TCONF, "__NR__newselect not implemented");
#endif
break;
-------------------------------------------------
2) The code at do_test(...) in newlib_tests/variant.c
-------------------------------------------------
switch (tst_variant) {
case 0:
/* This is skipped after first iteration */
tst_brk(TCONF, "Test skipped");
break;
case 1:
/* This test is correctly looped with -i opt */
tst_res(TPASS, "Test passed");
break;
case 2:
/* This exits the test immediatelly */
tst_brk(TBROK, "Test broken");
break;
}
tst_res(TINFO, "test() function exitting normaly");
-------------------------------------------------
Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
On 2019/03/28 18:50, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Reported-by: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> ---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h | 1 -
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c | 3 ---
> 2 files changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h
> index b19a1d1bf..29ebbc5ee 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h
> @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ static int do_select(int nfds, fd_set *readfds, fd_set *writefds, fd_set *except
> switch (tst_variant) {
> case 0:
> return select(nfds, readfds, writefds, exceptfds, timeout);
> - break;
> case 1: {
> #ifdef __LP64__
> return tst_syscall(__NR_select, nfds, readfds, writefds, exceptfds, timeout);
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c
> index ce0d2ff79..d75807d77 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c
> @@ -37,13 +37,10 @@ static int tested_sigpending(sigset_t *sigset)
> switch (tst_variant) {
> case 0:
> return sigpending(sigset);
> - break;
> case 1:
> return tst_syscall(__NR_sigpending, sigset);
> - break;
> case 2:
> return tst_syscall(__NR_rt_sigpending, sigset, SIGSETSIZE);
> - break;
> }
> return -1;
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] Remove break after return
2019-03-29 3:04 ` Xiao Yang
@ 2019-04-03 12:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
2019-04-03 12:06 ` Petr Vorel
0 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Cyril Hrubis @ 2019-04-03 12:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi!
> Thanks for your cleanup. :-)
>
> Can we also remove break after calling tst_brk()?
AFAIK that would generate warnings, since compiler cannot deduce on it's
own that the call will not return.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] Remove break after return
2019-04-03 12:02 ` Cyril Hrubis
@ 2019-04-03 12:06 ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-04 1:29 ` Xiao Yang
2019-04-05 6:48 ` Petr Vorel
0 siblings, 2 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2019-04-03 12:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi,
> > Can we also remove break after calling tst_brk()?
> AFAIK that would generate warnings, since compiler cannot deduce on it's
> own that the call will not return.
Agree.
Kind regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] Remove break after return
2019-04-03 12:06 ` Petr Vorel
@ 2019-04-04 1:29 ` Xiao Yang
2019-04-05 6:48 ` Petr Vorel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Xiao Yang @ 2019-04-04 1:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On 2019/04/03 20:06, Petr Vorel wrote:
>>> Can we also remove break after calling tst_brk()?
>> > AFAIK that would generate warnings, since compiler cannot deduce on it's
>> > own that the call will not return.
> Agree.
>
Hi,
Thanks for your explanation.
Other than the question, it looks good to me.
Reviewed-by: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] Remove break after return
2019-04-03 12:06 ` Petr Vorel
2019-04-04 1:29 ` Xiao Yang
@ 2019-04-05 6:48 ` Petr Vorel
1 sibling, 0 replies; 9+ messages in thread
From: Petr Vorel @ 2019-04-05 6:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
Hi,
> > > Can we also remove break after calling tst_brk()?
> > AFAIK that would generate warnings, since compiler cannot deduce on it's
> > own that the call will not return.
> Agree.
patchset merged (short variant).
NOTE: Warning is produced only on gcc (to my surprise only new versions: up to
gcc 6 it's ok, 7 and 8 warns):
In file included from variant.c:6:
variant.c: In function ‘do_test’:
../../include/tst_test.h:76:3: warning: this statement may fall through [-Wimplicit-fallthrough=]
tst_brk_(__FILE__, __LINE__, (ttype), (arg_fmt), ##__VA_ARGS__);\
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
variant.c:13:3: note: in expansion of macro ‘tst_brk’
tst_brk(TCONF, "Test skipped");
Kind regards,
Petr
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread
* [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] Remove break after return
2019-03-28 10:50 [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] Remove break after return Petr Vorel
2019-03-28 10:59 ` Enji Cooper
2019-03-29 3:04 ` Xiao Yang
@ 2019-04-05 3:22 ` Xiao Yang
2019-04-05 6:56 ` Petr Vorel
2 siblings, 1 reply; 9+ messages in thread
From: Xiao Yang @ 2019-04-05 3:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: ltp
On 2019/03/28 18:50, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Reported-by: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
> Signed-off-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> ---
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h | 1 -
> testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c | 3 ---
> 2 files changed, 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h
> index b19a1d1bf..29ebbc5ee 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/select/select_var.h
> @@ -20,7 +20,6 @@ static int do_select(int nfds, fd_set *readfds, fd_set *writefds, fd_set *except
> switch (tst_variant) {
> case 0:
> return select(nfds, readfds, writefds, exceptfds, timeout);
> - break;
> case 1: {
> #ifdef __LP64__
> return tst_syscall(__NR_select, nfds, readfds, writefds, exceptfds, timeout);
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c
> index ce0d2ff79..d75807d77 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sigpending/sigpending02.c
> @@ -37,13 +37,10 @@ static int tested_sigpending(sigset_t *sigset)
> switch (tst_variant) {
> case 0:
> return sigpending(sigset);
> - break;
Hi Petr,
I have added libc sigpending() detection by the following patch:
http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/2019-April/011590.html
Perhaps, we should avoid potential compiler warnings by keeping the
break here.
Best Regards,
Xiao Yang
> case 1:
> return tst_syscall(__NR_sigpending, sigset);
> - break;
> case 2:
> return tst_syscall(__NR_rt_sigpending, sigset, SIGSETSIZE);
> - break;
> }
> return -1;
> }
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 9+ messages in thread