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 0BB30C433EF for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:48:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0E9B3C9285 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:48:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-3.smtp.seeweb.it (in-3.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.3]) (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 picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5D9073C8C74 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:48:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (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-3.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 631351A00925 for ; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:48:12 +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-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5395B1F384; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:48:12 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1640170092; 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=bvIZh/CALuoAEd68eRkLfCUoIeV3q1BYmHNn+JSAsRE=; b=wDD1R92Y5EpWhT5SN7uney+z4B05jd7KZTs/9Bz2LtxdXVrXKu6lQxs4BMsntdQAoQl5Oj nE3eCZXFAdP5hjpCHA+Cre0iMkZno/nWP2OstoQOnnhGFtRAmAZpXe0aJogywVuw02zkT7 MI6Z3+aYhPr41w3iaytqp0L05covkOk= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1640170092; 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=bvIZh/CALuoAEd68eRkLfCUoIeV3q1BYmHNn+JSAsRE=; b=OZbvit27J7/Jz5Ml8kvk5TmBXPfgOLC/fmsZE6tykfeijOgBVEXTL8JlZnX94O6IL9oaE8 ktkl1mrO8A51qgBQ== 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 091A513D02; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id y4IdO2sCw2GCAgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Wed, 22 Dec 2021 10:48:11 +0000 Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 11:48:10 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: References: <20211221193500.31950-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <61C28CB8.3050209@fujitsu.com> <61C2C02A.90104@fujitsu.com> <61C2E3DB.9070004@fujitsu.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-3.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] lib: Skip tst_{disable, enable}_oom_protection() for non-root 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: Petr Vorel Cc: Richard Palethorpe , "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! > > We use just FILE_PRINTF(), but we check the result and TWARN, which causes the > > failure in CI. > Which is why I argued that we should add a version that does not print > anything and just returns if the operation was successful or not. I > guess it could be called TRY_FILE_PRINTF() or something. OK, got that. > > I've sent v2, which checks CAP_SYS_ADMIN and CAP_SYS_RESOURCE, > > but feel free just to bring simpler solution. > I still think that the most acurate test would be just writing to the > file and checking the result. OK. Anybody taking this (so that not more people working on it)? Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp