[Devel] Re: ptem01 LTP failure in ttydev-0909

[Subrata Modak]

Thanks Suka,

Post Patching:

# ./testcases/bin/ptem01
ptem01      1  PASS  :  test1
ptem01      2  PASS  :  test2
ptem01      3  PASS  :  test3
ptem01      4  PASS  :  test4
ptem01      5  PASS  :  test5
ptem01      6  PASS  :  test6


Regards--
Subrata

On Sat, 2008-11-01 at 13:33 -0700, sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> Sorry, this was buried in my inbox...
> 
> Subrata Modak [subrata at linux.vnet.ibm.com] wrote:
> | Hi Sukadev,
> | 
> | On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 21:14 -0700, sukadev at linux.vnet.ibm.com wrote:
> | > Alan Cox [alan at lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk] wrote:
> | > | > The test changes the window size using the slave-fd and expects that
> | > | > it won't affect the window-size on master-fd. With this change, we
> | > | > return the slave's window size and test fails.
> | > | 
> | > | I've no idea why anyone would have thought the existing behaviour was
> | > | correct. The pty/tty pair code tries to share the size and other
> | > | information at all times and the old test was I think verifying a bug
> | > | existed.
> | > | 
> | > | Unless anyone can cite anything to show otherwise anyway ?
> | > 
> | > Subrata 
> | > 
> | > We are referring to the last window size check in test2() of
> | > testcases/kernel/pty/ptem01.c. This check will cause the test
> | > to fail when some of the planned ttydev changes are merged.
> | > 
> | > Would you happen to know if the check is really required or if
> | > it should be dropped ?
> | 
> |  I would want the test to remain there, but introduce some checkings
> | before running the test. As test2() is valid under present
> | circumstances, we should retain it as people will keep using LTP on
> | lower kernels.
> 
> Just to be clear, the entire test2() is not broken. Only the last part
> (see patch below) Other parts of test2() should be fine even with
> new changes.
> 
> | 
> | Having said that, i would like to come with a solution where test2() of
> | testcases/kernel/pty/ptem01.c is not run after the planned ttydev
> | changes are merged. Something compile/run time checking to either not to
> | build that part of code and run it. Can we do something like that by
> | checking some glibc/kernel exported definitions ?
> 
> Other than the kernel version when the changes are merged, I am not sure
> there is a way. Besides, it is not clear which assertion that part of
> test2() is testing and if it is even needed for older kernels.
> 
> Here is the part of test2() I am referring to:
> 
> ---
>  testcases/kernel/pty/ptem01.c |   12 ------------
>  1 file changed, 12 deletions(-)
> 
> Index: ltp-full-20071031/testcases/kernel/pty/ptem01.c
> ===================================================================
> --- ltp-full-20071031.orig/testcases/kernel/pty/ptem01.c        2008-11-01 13:30:42.977954127 -0700
> +++ ltp-full-20071031/testcases/kernel/pty/ptem01.c     2008-11-01 13:31:41.439427078 -0700
> @@ -238,18 +238,6 @@ test2(void)
>                 tst_exit();
>         }
> 
> -       if (ioctl(masterfd, TIOCGWINSZ, &wsz) != 0) {
> -               tst_resm(TFAIL,"TIOCGWINSZ");
> -               tst_exit();
> -       }
> -
> -       if (wsz.ws_row == wsz2.ws_row || wsz.ws_col == wsz2.ws_col ||
> -           wsz.ws_xpixel == wsz2.ws_xpixel ||
> -           wsz.ws_ypixel == wsz2.ws_ypixel) {
> -               tst_resm(TFAIL, "unexpected window size returned");
> -               tst_exit();
> -       }
> -
>         if (close(slavefd) != 0) {
>                 tst_resm(TBROK,"close");
>                 tst_exit();

_______________________________________________
Containers mailing list
Containers at lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers