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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Sorry, this was buried in my inbox... > > Subrata Modak [subrata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] wrote: > | Hi Sukadev, > | > | On Thu, 2008-09-18 at 21:14 -0700, sukadev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > | > Alan Cox [alan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] 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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers