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-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1TQugU-00076A-JU for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:43:22 +0000 Received: from mx4-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.25]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1TQugO-0007KM-RG for ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:43:22 +0000 Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 02:43:08 -0400 (EDT) From: Jan Stancek Message-ID: <953803847.5389852.1351060988163.JavaMail.root@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <50873A3B.3030209@cn.fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [LTP] Regarding shmat01 syscall test 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: gaowanlong@cn.fujitsu.com Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Wanlong Gao" > To: "Om Prakash PAL" > Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net > Sent: Wednesday, 24 October, 2012 2:45:47 AM > Subject: Re: [LTP] Regarding shmat01 syscall test > > 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? I recall I could reproduce it, if I added single printf: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ltp/16480 Regards, Jan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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