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 C6056C433F5 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 07:58:02 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5E9793CA4F9 for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:58:00 +0200 (CEST) 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 4BAE53CA4DC for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:57:49 +0200 (CEST) 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 9C5FF600BCB for ; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:57:48 +0200 (CEST) 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 4FD41215FE; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 07:57:47 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1649404667; 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=yMdabuL9t38VjM2E3r8kotZA7W39PXBxP3yvgSy0Qy0=; b=ZxZiI/hK9TExvZkvXBMf775crVTJkPt4otOllPDx+A6ZSw44Wpxg6TuiUXEW8jSbg+zcn+ 0VsMBoydJGy0toi+kQIFdsopZXV2M9dAuqKbMTaQiH1Wj0MWlpzNKoLQfdWuGUowpjwSC3 VW6tjNQ6CzKX2IMUqKfJLpA5ooAHlgQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1649404667; 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=yMdabuL9t38VjM2E3r8kotZA7W39PXBxP3yvgSy0Qy0=; b=S+HsAd67h+gcsNlgxdeT4sHZckS7YcQihGjOcD+obyESO7c9I+JPXZFjbiSfQeXs9qv21f YEqg7DUJUZFU0UAA== 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 E54DA13AA9; Fri, 8 Apr 2022 07:57:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id Uq2bNvrqT2JYHgAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Fri, 08 Apr 2022 07:57:46 +0000 Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2022 09:57:44 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Li Wang Message-ID: References: <20220328114921.182315-1-zhaogongyi@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] io_submit01/io_submit02: Bugfix for running with the option "-i" 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: Viresh Kumar , Martin Doucha , LTP List Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" > On Tue, Apr 5, 2022 at 10:08 PM Petr Vorel wrote: > > Hi all, > > > For io_submit01, add io_destroy before test return, or the test > > > would fail and report EAGAIN. > > > For io_submit02, move the io_destroy to the suitable location, or > > > the test would fail and report EAGAIN. > > $ ./io_submit01 -i150 > > ... > > io_submit01.c:122: TPASS: io_submit() with NULL iocb pointers failed with > > EFAULT > > io_submit01.c:127: TFAIL: io_submit() returned -11(EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK), > > expected EBADF(-9) > > io_submit01.c:127: TFAIL: io_submit() returned -11(EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK), > > expected EBADF(-9) > > io_submit01.c:127: TFAIL: io_submit() returned -11(EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK), > > expected EBADF(-9) > > io_submit01.c:127: TFAIL: io_submit() returned -11(EAGAIN/EWOULDBLOCK), > > expected SUCCESS(1) > > $ ./io_submit02 -i150 > > ... > > io_submit02.c:76: TPASS: io_submit() returns 0 if nr is zero > > io_submit02.c:78: TFAIL: io_submit() returns -1, expected 1 > > @Cyril, Li, Martin, Viresh: while this fix is valid using memset() (which > > is required) > > slows down testing a lot. Any idea whether this can be avoid to keep the > > speed? > It would not be a serious problem if only execute the test once, > I'm wondering if it really necessary to rerun many times(i.e. 150)? Hi Li, I guess for stressing particular subsystem can be useful to run some test many times (but I don't personally do it). Sure, we could limit test to run only few times (e.g. < 50). > BTW, the patch generally looks good to me. +1 Let's wait for other input. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp