From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C0573C4332F for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 13:12:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96C03CC8DD for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 14:12:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A08183C99B0 for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 14:11:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.220.28]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 04910608A7E for ; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 14:11:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from relay2.suse.de (relay2.suse.de [149.44.160.134]) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3868A219C3; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 13:11:49 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_rsa; t=1698930709; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=WqKi+8YEt010l24uIgan4M8+amf8pi/2aye7mqMzYL0=; b=m2HjGxezQ3wknVU0twHOt8uC9xqfWiPC3hz81Ee1QUX6MlbqurG+96IzLR8P7TjMzheam+ 7PEBmewz4KkhD+AKes/xPytsrJUlT553UYH++QUT1wsQaALIprpWoagon7EkMD8VmDjlT0 6ShQSO+wJdCMNjLmkS8JG7YCC+up4qA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.de; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1698930709; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=WqKi+8YEt010l24uIgan4M8+amf8pi/2aye7mqMzYL0=; b=fNcyuHbsovq53h/KxiVKVSBEi5OVkMPraMev/N6YyK8nk6+ojjqtsRh+e7/QDwzyD0MoS6 G+r2djFGYEq8hXCw== Received: from g78 (rpalethorpe.udp.ovpn2.prg.suse.de [10.100.204.110]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by relay2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A745D2C4B8; Thu, 2 Nov 2023 13:11:48 +0000 (UTC) References: <20230907150538.16772-1-andrea.cervesato@suse.de> User-agent: mu4e 1.10.7; emacs 29.1 From: Richard Palethorpe To: Cyril Hrubis Date: Thu, 02 Nov 2023 12:56:33 +0000 Organization: Linux Private Site In-reply-to: Message-ID: <87edh8s3jf.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.1 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v1] Refactor fork09 using new LTP API X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: rpalethorpe@suse.de Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hello, Cyril Hrubis writes: > Hi! > Honestly I'm struggling to understand the point of this test, the > description says: > > "Check that child has access to a full set of files" > > What is that supposed to mean? I guess that if we wanted to check that > the child has inherited the file descriptors ee should open a few files, > do some changes in the child/parent and check that they are not propagated to > the other one. I.e. reading from a file in child/parent does not change > file offset in parent. Closing a file descriptor from a child/parent > does not close the file in the other one, etc. This is what the fork10 rewrite does unless I am mistaken? So possibly they can be combined. fork12's description sugggests it does the same thing, but thhe test just seems to test forking until a resource limit is hit. This overlaps other tests and can probably be deleted. > > Also why do we use fopen() instead of just open()? > > -- > Cyril Hrubis > chrubis@suse.cz -- Thank you, Richard. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp