Hi Shaopeng,
On 1/22/2023 8:22 PM, Shaopeng Tan (Fujitsu) wrote:
>> On 1/10/2023 11:58 PM, Shaopeng Tan wrote:
...
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
>>> index 6a8306b0a109..87302b882929 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/cat_test.c
>>> @@ -103,7 +103,6 @@ int cat_perf_miss_val(int cpu_no, int n, char
>> *cache_type)
>>> unsigned long l_mask, l_mask_1;
>>> int ret, pipefd[2], sibling_cpu_no;
>>> char pipe_message;
>>> - pid_t bm_pid;
>>>
>>> cache_size = 0;
>>>
>>> @@ -181,28 +180,29 @@ int cat_perf_miss_val(int cpu_no, int n, char
>> *cache_type)
>>> strcpy(param.filename, RESULT_FILE_NAME1);
>>> param.num_of_runs = 0;
>>> param.cpu_no = sibling_cpu_no;
>>> + } else {
>>> + ret = signal_handler_register();
>>> + if (ret)
>>> + goto out;
>>
>> The "goto" will unregister the signal handler. Is that necessary if the registration
>> failed?
>>
>> Also, if signal_handler_register() fails then the child will keep running and run
>> its test ... would child not then run forever?
>
> A signal handler is needed here, but it is rarely used.
> Also, the registration rarely fails.
> Therefore, if registration failed,
> just print a warning/info message as follow.
> how about this idea?
>
> ksft_print_msg("Failed to register signal handler, signals SIGINT/SIGTERM/SIGHUP will not be handled as expected");
>
I do not think this is necessary considering that signal_handler_register()
already prints an error on failure.
Adding an error message does not address the two issues I raised.
Reinette
