qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RFC PATCH-for-5.1?] tests/tcg/multiarch/linux-test: Skip test if na


From: Laurent Vivier
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH-for-5.1?] tests/tcg/multiarch/linux-test: Skip test if nanosleep missing (Travis)
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2020 13:38:31 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.9.0

Le 21/07/2020 à 10:57, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé a écrit :
> The time test sometimes fails on Travis-CI [*]:
> 
>     TEST    linux-test on aarch64
>   tests/tcg/multiarch/linux-test.c:237: nanosleep
>   make[2]: *** [run-linux-test] Error 1
>   make: *** [run-tcg-tests-aarch64-linux-user] Error 2
> 
> As this seems due to a container limitation on Travis-CI,
> simply skip the test there.
> 
> [*] https://travis-ci.org/github/qemu/qemu/jobs/710005078#L3706
> 
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
> ---
> RFC because per Laurent Vivier we are not using the correct libc
>     while cross-linking the test (maybe change in the container
>     packages?)
> ---
>  tests/tcg/multiarch/linux-test.c | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tests/tcg/multiarch/linux-test.c 
> b/tests/tcg/multiarch/linux-test.c
> index 8a7c15cd31..c7dfdec9ec 100644
> --- a/tests/tcg/multiarch/linux-test.c
> +++ b/tests/tcg/multiarch/linux-test.c
> @@ -233,8 +233,13 @@ static void test_time(void)
>      ts.tv_sec = 0;
>      ts.tv_nsec = 20 * 1000000;
>      chk_error(nanosleep(&ts, &rem));
> -    if (rem.tv_sec != 1)
> +    if (rem.tv_sec != 1) {
> +        if (getenv("TRAVIS_ARCH")) {
> +            printf("nanosleep missing? skipping 'time' test\n");
> +            return;
> +        }
>          error("nanosleep");
> +    }
>      chk_error(gettimeofday(&tv2, NULL));
>      ti = tv2.tv_sec - tv.tv_sec;
>      if (ti >= 2)
> 

Well, in the end I think the problem is in linux-user:

We copy the "rem" structure even if there is no error, so "1" is
overwritten.

We don't have the problem on all architectures because some use
nanosleep() syscall (that is correct) others use clock_nanosleep()
syscall that is not correct.

This should fix the problem:

diff --git a/linux-user/syscall.c b/linux-user/syscall.c
index 1211e759c26c..130005716ece 100644
--- a/linux-user/syscall.c
+++ b/linux-user/syscall.c
@@ -11831,7 +11831,7 @@ static abi_long do_syscall1(void *cpu_env, int
num, abi_long arg1,
         target_to_host_timespec(&ts, arg3);
         ret = get_errno(safe_clock_nanosleep(arg1, arg2,
                                              &ts, arg4 ? &ts : NULL));
-        if (arg4)
+        if (is_error(ret) && arg4)
             host_to_target_timespec(arg4, &ts);

 #if defined(TARGET_PPC)

Thanks,
Laurent




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]