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 D3A69C25B75 for ; Fri, 31 May 2024 08:02:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A4C3D0750 for ; Fri, 31 May 2024 10:02:08 +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 (secp384r1)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B4A43CAB27 for ; Fri, 31 May 2024 10:01:53 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: in-5.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.130; helo=smtp-out1.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out1.suse.de (smtp-out1.suse.de [195.135.223.130]) (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 C36AD601119 for ; Fri, 31 May 2024 10:01:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org [IPv6:2a07:de40:b281:104:10:150:64:97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out1.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49B2D21ACB; Fri, 31 May 2024 08:01:51 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1717142511; 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=N0/3UImCSS4Q17w3AVgmpQmQ05Enp4kgwlrucqodv1s=; b=uzJ4wlaH3rCBs6jz1eAHGgkPXhCETxZpol+tYui5gRgaFPGUu+67HHyNNvjvEcYz4pfppz 06xf1EGvV5jNmkpucVn3eMArrxCuwcz7PLPYqJRtlvupU2ZaGvr+IvqaHYZdhdrdUc6IHY y25NHssAb0P1JhF7Q1A7VbKEXy6FgTU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1717142511; 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=N0/3UImCSS4Q17w3AVgmpQmQ05Enp4kgwlrucqodv1s=; b=i2nu4Kwzrciygr5LIKGijwUkq4A3hLV+vX52l6vifnAyl8mZ9SYez9aTzIgoslPbUG069k GLVzVxA6/1WceNDw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out1.suse.de; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_rsa header.b=uzJ4wlaH; dkim=pass header.d=suse.cz header.s=susede2_ed25519 header.b=i2nu4Kwz DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1717142511; 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=N0/3UImCSS4Q17w3AVgmpQmQ05Enp4kgwlrucqodv1s=; b=uzJ4wlaH3rCBs6jz1eAHGgkPXhCETxZpol+tYui5gRgaFPGUu+67HHyNNvjvEcYz4pfppz 06xf1EGvV5jNmkpucVn3eMArrxCuwcz7PLPYqJRtlvupU2ZaGvr+IvqaHYZdhdrdUc6IHY y25NHssAb0P1JhF7Q1A7VbKEXy6FgTU= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1717142511; 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=N0/3UImCSS4Q17w3AVgmpQmQ05Enp4kgwlrucqodv1s=; b=i2nu4Kwzrciygr5LIKGijwUkq4A3hLV+vX52l6vifnAyl8mZ9SYez9aTzIgoslPbUG069k GLVzVxA6/1WceNDw== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3A1E1137C3; Fri, 31 May 2024 08:01:51 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id lnoZDe+DWWZ6fwAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Fri, 31 May 2024 08:01:51 +0000 Date: Fri, 31 May 2024 10:03:21 +0200 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Andrea Cervesato Message-ID: References: <20240530-ioctl_ficlone-v1-0-fa96f07d0fca@suse.com> <20240530-ioctl_ficlone-v1-3-fa96f07d0fca@suse.com> <82ac2455-ab1c-4bdf-b4e3-5ae56dfb9871@suse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <82ac2455-ab1c-4bdf-b4e3-5ae56dfb9871@suse.com> X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.00 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-2.99)[99.95%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; MID_RHS_NOT_FQDN(0.50)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[suse.cz:dkim,suse.cz:email,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo,imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:rdns]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[suse.cz:+] X-Rspamd-Action: no action X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 49B2D21ACB X-Rspamd-Server: rspamd1.dmz-prg2.suse.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH 3/3] Add ioctl_ficlone03 test 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! > > Can we move these invalid_fd tests into a separate test and use tst_fd > > to loop over all kinds of invalid input and output file descriptors? > > > I don't know if it's worth to loop over all possible cases. Each one of > them has a specific test case. This was actually requested by kernel developers, to feed the syscalls with all kind of unexpected file descriptors. > Also, invalid_fd test cases would look so simple that it makes more > sense to keep it here. Fair enough, we can keep these two here, but we need a tst_fd test as well. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp