[LTP] [PATCH 1/1] net/sendfile01.sh: Check with timeout

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Li,

> > > > old api, not sure why exactly it was removed in the new one...
> > > It was designed from scratch I guess.
> > > But this patch makes sense to me, I'll test it tomorrow.

> > Actually, I now consider a bit cleaner and safer solution to *not* use eval
> > and require test to specify function. E.g.:


> Why not use eval for that? It helps us to perform more commands directly
> without wrap into function.


> > +retry_fnc()
> > +{
> > +       tst_rhost_run -c 'ss -ltp' | grep -q "$port.*testsf"
> > +}
> > +
> >  do_setup()
> >  {

> > @@ -28,7 +33,7 @@ do_setup()
> >         tst_rhost_run -s -b -c "$server $(tst_ipaddr rhost) $port"
> >         server_started=1
> >         tst_res TINFO "wait for the server to start"
> > -       sleep 1
> > +       TST_RETRY_FUNC retry_fnc 0
> >  }

> > Instead of simple:

> >  do_setup()
> > @@ -28,7 +28,7 @@ do_setup()
> >         tst_rhost_run -s -b -c "$server $(tst_ipaddr rhost) $port"
> >         server_started=1
> >         tst_res TINFO "wait for the server to start"
> > -       sleep 1
> > +       TST_RETRY_FUNC "tst_rhost_run -c 'ss -ltp' | grep -q
> > '$port.*testsf'" 0
> >  }

> > But I don't have strong opinion on it.
> > Cyril, Li, any preference?


> If no more strict reasons I prefer to go the simpler way. And there is no
> need to wrap a retry_fun() I think.

I'm a bit careful and try to avoid eval in scripts for security reasons.
But ok, LTP code is a bit different from running shell scripts on the server,
security does not matters on SUT, so I'm not against it. I just wanted to hear
more opinions on that, thanks for your comment.

Kind regards,
Petr