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 79403C433EF for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 11:13:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 29B703C926E for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:13:21 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 40F223C282E for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:13:11 +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 A3AAD601033 for ; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:13:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F1800210FE; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 11:13:09 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1640085189; h=from:from: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=a3kdSucoKjFkWW8dLVOWKKWzm/7ik6SlDIyizwIa0tQ=; b=hfpI6f6ApNgSvTlO+k8YPBo7TeNGeXY7p8ks2gV9jzM1l4b3mHRDbZZNXk7vzHmG9YaaFl RhTCAnEzxmRdrcm3zRvbnoepMItjNW1g1MlaVk/QTs16xqv8gVpUuRXG8srqnvSspvt7Vg M5HXX0K+56il2VtFckfQqB9WOhixTvA= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1640085189; h=from:from: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=a3kdSucoKjFkWW8dLVOWKKWzm/7ik6SlDIyizwIa0tQ=; b=2lW/qVay5IR9Q4sy3MQ9ospQd0G7PfHPELCxXO3/TS5GqFPD8OTniru4P0DhvNr3Ik79N8 lMn311QtbD/0RvCQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DD2BF13C50; Tue, 21 Dec 2021 11:13:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id PPPkNMW2wWFWcwAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 21 Dec 2021 11:13:09 +0000 Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2021 12:14:40 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Richard Palethorpe Message-ID: References: <20211220131043.18894-1-rpalethorpe@suse.com> <20211220131043.18894-3-rpalethorpe@suse.com> <87a6gufd77.fsf@suse.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87a6gufd77.fsf@suse.de> X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] cgroup: Add memcontrol02 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: , 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" Hi! > > But even then all the macros all written in a way that they do expect > > a syscall as a first parameter and the messages are not clear. > > Possibly it should just be TST_EXP(bool_expr, fmt, ...). That would be like > practically every other testing framework. OTOH LTP is somewhat special > as we usually are checking the return value of a syscall. So I should > probably leave these macros alone in this case. Sounds reasonably. > > Maybe we need a different solution. We already have tst_assert_foo() > > functions for sysfs/proc files so maybe we need something as compare > > function for the cgroup file attributes: > > Frankly that is poor naming. One would expect tst_assert to be similar > to assert from assert.h. Feel free to propose rename if you have a better idea. > > > > enum cmp { > > CMP_EQ, > > CMP_NE, > > CMP_LT, > > CMP_GT, > > CMP_LE, > > CMP_GE, > > CMP_EPS, > > }; > > > > CGROUP_ASSERT_CMP_SIZE(cg_child, "memory.current", CMP_EQ, 0); > > > > CGROUP_ASSERT_CMP_SIZE(cg_child, "memory.current", CMP_EPS, file, 10); > > > > > > or even simple macro that would compare two values accordingly > > to the OP and print PASS/FAIL would be better than this. > > > > I think it would be simpler to just create a general assert_expr > macro. The above function won't neatly handle loading multiple values > from multiple files. Nor will it handle transforming values. Yes, that is one of the limitations. > We could implement SQL queries for sys files, like osquery, that would > be neat! Hmm, we do allready have boolean parser in LTP library, maybe we can just reuse that, as long as we add a code that parses specified sysfs files into variables that are passed to the parser it should work reasonably well for us. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp