[LTP] [PATCH] umip_basic_test.c: update umip basic test for new kernel v5.4

[Pengfei Xu]

Hi Li Wang,


On 2019-09-29 at 15:13:35 +0800, Li Wang wrote:
> Hi Pengfei,
> 
> Pengfei Xu <pengfei.xu@intel.com> wrote:
> 
> ...
> > >
> > > My concern is that if an LTS distro backports the patch(commit
> > e86c2c8b93),
> > > then it will break this hardcode kernel-version comparing.
> > >
> > >
> >   Ok, let's wait to confirm umip patch merged into Linux kernel main line,
> >   and then merge the patch into LTP. :)
> >
> 
> Sorry, I'm not talking merge time. I mean we have to consider more kernel
> distros(RHEL, SLES, Ubuntu) when writing/amending LTP test.
> 
> Imagine that, if RHEL8(kernel base on v4.18) backports the kernel
> patch(x86/umip: Add emulation (spoofing) for UMIP covered instructions in
> 64-bit processes) and what will happen after applying your patch in
> this umip_basic_test.c test? It will fail since that kernel version is less
> than 5.4. We probably need to find a way to solve this issue.
> 
 Ok, got it, we need consider one better way for it. :)
 Thanks for advice!

> >
> > > > +               #endif
> > > > +       }
> > > > +
> > > >         if (WIFSIGNALED(status) && WTERMSIG(status) == SIGSEGV) {
> > > > -               tst_res(TPASS, "Got SIGSEGV");
> > > > +               tst_res(TPASS, "Got SIGSEGV\n\n");
> > > >
> > >
> > > Why we need two '\n' here?
> > >
> >   Because it could help to split umip cases in LTP, there are 5 umip cases
> >   in LTP tests, and we could check each umip case easily in LTP log,
> >
> 
> It is unnecessary because each test shows TINFO before testing.
>   e.g  "umip_basic_test.c:41: INFO: TEST sgdt, sgdt result save at
> [0x7fff930bda8e]"
> 
 Ok thanks! :)

> -- 
> Regards,
> Li Wang