From: Caspar Z. <ca...@ca...> - 2012-07-11 10:15:02
|
On 05/18/2012 04:35 PM, Christopher Yeoh wrote: > On Tue, 15 May 2012 10:56:17 -0400 (EDT) > Jan Stancek <jst...@re...> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> I looked at testcases sent by Chris. Good news is, they >> do not overlap (in terms of functionality) with mine :-). >> >> The patch need some polishing to match the style guide: >> - indentation >> - I think output should be TINFO, rather than plain printf >> - single statement if without { } >> - I would split some code to more functions, for example >> process_vm_writev01.c main function seems complex > > Thanks for the feedback. I'll have a go at reworking them. > >> As for test organization, I think we need to decide 2 issues: >> 1. directory structure >> a) >> testcases/kernel/syscalls/cma/ >> testcases/kernel/syscalls/cma/process_vm_readv >> testcases/kernel/syscalls/cma/process_vm_writev >> b) >> testcases/kernel/syscalls/process_vm_readv >> testcases/kernel/syscalls/process_vm_writev >> >> I'm preferring a) as these 2 syscalls are closely related, >> and we already have need to share code. > > that would be fine with me. > >> 2. how to invoke new syscalls >> a) >> Patch from Chris is defining new syscall numbers in test and >> using syscall(2). >> >> b) >> My patch adds configure check for glibc wrappers >> process_vm_readv/writev and if those does not exists it checks for >> __NR_process_vm_readv. >> >> I think we should not define syscall numbers in tests directly, >> but I'm relying on LTP maintainers to provide guidance here. > > I agree - the configure check is much better. I was just trying to get > something working :-) > > Regards, > > Chris > Hi Chris, not sure if you're working on a v2 to these CMA simple tests, if not, mind /me doing some update based on your version? Thanks, Caspar |