On Friday 27 March 2015, Karel Zak wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 02:50:33PM +0100, Ruediger Meier wrote: > > Our logger tests fail if it can't connect to /dev/log. I'd like to > > fix that case for the test-suite but have some questions: > > > > 1. It was confusing for me to figure out the actual > > problem. Maybe --no-act and/or --stderr should imply > > that --socket-errors=auto turns error printing on? > > Hmm.. probably good idea. I'll send a patch. > > 2. Alternatively we could use --socket-errors=on for all tests. > > > > 3. Couldn't we fix --no-act to not need an open /dev/log at all? > > But then it will introduce another fragility, complexity and > difference between test (--no-act) and non-test mode. I see for > example "if(ctl->fd < 0)" in code. Now it really skips write() only. You are right. If there would be a real-life use case for --no-act then not connecting /dev/log could be an optimization but I guess there is no such use case except our tests. So how could we skip logger tests safely if /dev/log does not work? cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
