Re: [LTP] [PATCH v8 1/5] sched_setattr01: Convert to new API

[Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>]

Hi!
> +static void verify_sched_setattr(unsigned int n)
>  {
> -	TEST(sched_setattr(*(test->pid), test->a, test->flags));
> -
> -	if (TEST_RETURN != test->exp_return) {
> -		tst_resm(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "sched_setattr(%i,attr,%u) "
> -		         "returned: %ld expected: %d",
> -		         *(test->pid), test->flags,
> -		         TEST_RETURN, test->exp_return);
> +	struct tcase *tc = &tcases[n];
> +	pid_t pid = tc->pid ? *tc->pid : 0;
> +	struct sched_attr *target_attr = tc->bad_attr ? bad_addr : tc->attr;
> +	struct sched_attr read_attr = { .size = sizeof(read_attr) };
> +
> +	/*
> +	 * The kernel writes sizeof(struct sched_attr) back to uattr->size
> +	 * on the -E2BIG error path, clobbering our test input. Refresh
> +	 * before each call so re-runs (e.g. -i N) still exercise the
> +	 * intended size.
> +	 */
> +	attr_small.size = SCHED_ATTR_SIZE_VER0 - 1;
> +
> +	if (tc->exp_errno) {
> +		TST_EXP_FAIL(sched_setattr(pid, target_attr, tc->flags),
> +			     tc->exp_errno, "%s", tc->desc);
>  		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	if (TEST_ERRNO == test->exp_errno) {
> -		tst_resm(TPASS | TTERRNO,
> -			"sched_setattr() works as expected");
> +	TST_EXP_PASS(sched_setattr(pid, target_attr, tc->flags),
> +		     "%s", tc->desc);
> +	if (!TST_PASS)
>  		return;
> -	}
> -
> -	tst_resm(TFAIL | TTERRNO, "sched_setattr(%i,attr,%u): "
> -		"expected: %d - %s",
> -		*(test->pid), test->flags,
> -		test->exp_errno, tst_strerrno(test->exp_errno));
> -}
> -
> -int main(int argc, char **argv)
> -{
> -	pthread_t thread;
> -	int lc;
>  
> -	tst_parse_opts(argc, argv, NULL, NULL);
> -
> -	setup();
> -
> -	for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) {
> -		pthread_create(&thread, NULL, do_test, NULL);
> -		pthread_join(thread, NULL);
> +	if (sched_getattr(pid, &read_attr, sizeof(read_attr), 0) == -1) {
> +		tst_res(TFAIL | TERRNO, "sched_getattr() failed");
> +		return;
>  	}
>  
> -	tst_exit();
> +	TST_EXP_EQ_LU(read_attr.sched_policy, SCHED_DEADLINE);
> +	TST_EXP_EQ_LU(read_attr.sched_runtime, RUNTIME_VAL);
> +	TST_EXP_EQ_LU(read_attr.sched_deadline, DEADLINE_VAL);
> +	TST_EXP_EQ_LU(read_attr.sched_period, PERIOD_VAL);
> +
> +	reset_sched();
>  }

Can we please split the passing test into a separate testcase?

Mixing possitive and negative tests into single source makes things
more complex for no good reason...

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp