Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 26 Mar 2015 07:31:15 -0400 | From | Prarit Bhargava <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] kselftests: timers: Make set-timer-lat fail more gracefully for !CAP_WAKE_ALARM |
| |
On 03/25/2015 07:44 PM, John Stultz wrote: > The set-timer-lat test fails when testing CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM > or CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM when the user isn't running as root or > with CAP_WAKE_ALARM. > > So this patch improves the error checking so we report the > issue more clearly and continue rather then reporting a failure. > > Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> > Cc: Prarit Bhargava <prarit@redhat.com> > Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de> > Cc: Richard Cochran <richardcochran@gmail.com> > Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> > Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c | 7 +++++++ > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c > index 3ea2eff..dbc9537c 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/set-timer-lat.c > @@ -139,6 +139,13 @@ int do_timer(int clock_id, int flags) > > err = timer_create(clock_id, &se, &tm1); > if (err) { > + if ((clock_id == CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM) > + || (clock_id == CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM)) {
I dunno of there is actually a CodingStyle rule for this, but I've always seen this written with the operator on the first line:
if ((clock_id == CLOCK_REALTIME_ALARM) || (clock_id == CLOCK_BOOTTIME_ALARM)) {
> + printf("%-22s %s missing CAP_WAKE_ALARM? : [UNSUPPORTED]\n", > + clockstring(clock_id), > + flags ? "ABSTIME":"RELTIME");
Something to think about: Do you want to write these tests to be more human readable or machine readable? In theory with awk I guess it doesn't matter too much, however, it is something that we should think about moving forward.
P.
| |