From: Amit T. <ami...@re...> - 2002-07-15 06:20:00
|
Hi all, I am new to ltp community & so can anybody tell me whether I can use ltp for benchmarking and testing of rtlinux or uclinux on embedded platform? does that make any sense? I mean does ltp has some testcases to test real time features? If yes then i may have to work in that direction... thanks, Amit. On Sat, 13 Jul 2002 ltp...@li... wrote : >Send Ltp-list mailing list submissions to > ltp...@li... > >To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list >or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > ltp...@li... > >You can reach the person managing the list at > ltp...@li... > >When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more >specific >than "Re: Contents of Ltp-list digest..." > > >Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Patch for zSeries testcase failures (Robert >Williamson) > >--__--__-- > >Message: 1 >Subject: Re: [LTP] Patch for zSeries testcase failures >To: "Gerhard Tonn" <TO...@de...> >Cc: ltp...@li..., > "Susanne Wintenberger" <SW...@de...> > From: "Robert Williamson" <ro...@us...> >Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2002 12:05:24 -0500 > > >Thanks for the patch...I will try in get this into CVS by close >of business >on Monday (July 15th). > >- Robbie > >Robert V. Williamson <ro...@us...> >Linux Test Project >IBM Linux Technology Center >Phone: (512) 838-9295 T/L: 638-9295 >http://ltp.sourceforge.net > > > > Gerhard > Tonn/Germany/IBM@IBMDE To: >ltp...@li... > Sent by: cc: >Susanne Wintenberger/Germany/IBM@IBMDE > ltp...@li...ur Subject: >[LTP] Patch for zSeries testcase failures > ceforge.net > > > 07/12/2002 05:02 AM > > > > > > >Hi, >attached is a file that has testcase fixes for several failing >testcases on >the zSeries platforms. It includes also the fixes for 64 bit I >have posted >some days ago, but adapted to the latest ltp version. > >We have recently run the ltp testsuite on the IBM zSeries >platforms. It has >been executed on a 31 bit and a 64 bit kernel and a 31 bit system >call >emulation on a 64 bit kernel. > >Most of the failing testcases don't succeed since the value -1 >casted to an >address is not an invalid address on the 31 bit zSeries >platform. >On most platforms kernel and user space share the same address >space. An >address passed from user space to kernel space is invalid on >these >platforms >if the memory at that address is not mapped in or protected or if >it's a >kernel address. Passing -1 casted to an address doesn't fail on >31 bit >zSeries >platforms, since it addresses the bottom of the stack, and is not >a kernel >address as on most other platforms. > >In order to generate invalid addresses portable we should use the >mmap call >with protection PROT_NONE. See the attached file for a possible >solution. > >Another common cause for failures is the fact that some testcases >trigger >two errors and it is undefined which one has to be reported >first. Below >are >the detailed findings. > >The following testcases fail on the emulation layer, since -1 >casted to an >address is valid in this environment. > - access03 1 > - access03 2 > - access03 3 > - access03 4 > - access05 6 > - chdir04 3 > - chmod06 4 > - chown04 4 > - chroot03 4 > - creat06 5 > - execve03 4 > - lchown02 4 > - link04 7 > - link04 13 > - lstat02 3 > - mkdir01 1 > - mkdir03 1 > - mknod06 3 > - open08 6 > - rename08 1 > - rename08 2 > - rmdir02 5 > - rmdir05 4 > - stat03 3 > - stat06 7 > - statfs02 4 > - symlink03 4 > - truncate03 4 > - unlink07 8 > - readv02 2 > - read02 3 > >fcntl13 fails on the emulation layer > The fourth run passes two invalid parameters, the first one is >an >invalid file pointer, the third one an invalid address. Since >the > emulation wrapper does some additional parameter checking, the >third one >is checked before the first one which results in a different >error code. > See patch file for fix. > >statfs03 fails on the emulation layer > The testcase passes an invalid buf parameter. Since the >emulation wrapper >does some additional parameter checking, it is checked > before permission is checked which results in a different >error code. > See patch file for fix. > >pread02 fails on the 31 bit kernel > This is a glibc bug on 31 bit platforms. >http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007908799/xsh/read.html >defines that >pread > returns EINVAL, if the offset is negative. However the >glibc >implementation on 31 bit doesn't check it but does a conversion > from an >off_t (defined as long) to > an loff_t (defined as long long), but ignoring the sign. The >64 bit >implementation is correct. We are going to fix this in the glibc >function. > >recv01 - 3 , recvfrom01 - 5 and recvmsg01 - 5 fail on all zSeries >kernels > These testcases fail even when passing an invalid address >since the >address is never dereferenced. It succeeds on most platforms > using -1 as address, since checking for kernel addresses is >always done >in advance, but as said above not applicable to the zSeries >platform. > >(See attached file: ltp-20020709-s390.patch) > >Regards / Mit freundlichen Gruessen >Gerhard > >Gerhard Tonn, Linux for eServer Development, +(49)-7031-16-4716, >Lotus >Notes: ton@ibmde, > Internet: to...@de... > > >#### ltp-20020709-s390.patch has been removed from this note on >July 12 >2002 by Robert Williamson > > > > > > > >--__--__-- > >_______________________________________________ >Ltp-list mailing list >Ltp...@li... >https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list > > >End of Ltp-list Digest _________________________________________________________ There is always a better job for you at Monsterindia.com. Go now http://monsterindia.rediff.com/jobs |
From: Paul L. <pl...@au...> - 2002-07-15 13:13:52
|
On Mon, 2002-07-15 at 01:17, Amit Tuljapurkar wrote: > > Hi all, > > I am new to ltp community & so can anybody tell me whether I can > use ltp for benchmarking and testing of rtlinux or uclinux on > embedded platform? does that make any sense? I mean does ltp has > some testcases to test real time features? LTP is aimed at being a pretty general Linux kernel test suite. So it hasn't been written with RTOS targetted specifically. That being said, there are still some tests in there that would probably be very useful for you to run from a verification perspective. Give it a try and see what breaks. If you have some tests to add to it, send them out way. Thanks, Paul Larson |