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 0E673C433F5 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 14:44:59 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DCCC3C9AE6 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 15:44:58 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-2.smtp.seeweb.it (in-2.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::2]) (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 992B73C0391 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 15:44:49 +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-2.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1F4B26009E2 for ; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 15:44:48 +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 4482F1F37E; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 14:44:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1644245088; 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=+hPMtNpohL1r/3BqDLe4wH6ZS/zbGn1unmUhuTX19jg=; b=2wp9S8iVX64HlPnBJKaOohp7wHCOmnsevm+eMZV8wLCaEyMKyze8TfjlbvS6ivHoJk7pYm cznODRaFDDj7FReEvTc3rEuFgXci+ExwvO8KbVfkCfjzmYkL0qQP4tooG++Ah2Ld8CLCjK kQJlXunE86S6ITtis5heUAiQyiXYMlM= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1644245088; 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=+hPMtNpohL1r/3BqDLe4wH6ZS/zbGn1unmUhuTX19jg=; b=tFKD/H+zNdq61IQt4vBtgnmhBHzM4WupARDwi2dorokzULaVm8lNWV4bbRn8LhgwHlqo7G 6t8dg6EXRe1zteCg== 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 2A87813C28; Mon, 7 Feb 2022 14:44:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id JRCjCWAwAWLyTAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Mon, 07 Feb 2022 14:44:48 +0000 Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2022 15:46:51 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Petr Vorel Message-ID: References: <20220203061222.625948-1-amir73il@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-2.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/inotify: New test for IN_DELETE regression 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: Ivan Delalande , Jan Kara , 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! > > + /* Kill the child creating / deleting files and wait for it */ > > + SAFE_KILL(pid, SIGKILL); > > + pid = 0; > > + SAFE_WAIT(NULL); > Interesting. I didn't figure out why kill and wait cannot be done just in > cleanup. I guess that we want to stop the child in the case that we happened to open the deleted file and did abort the testing. Technically we send a signal to a zombie process in the case that the bug was not reproduced (as the child exits the verify_inotify() with return it will just do exit(0) once it reaches test library code). But that should be harmless. On the other hand I guess that it may make the code a bit more readable if we moved the SAFE_KILL() just after opened = 1 in the inner loop. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp