[LTP] [PATCH v3 1/3] API: TST_EXP_FAIL: Allow passing when errno is not checked

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> >> This is also less surprising than giving errno == 0 a dual
> >> meaning.
> >
> > But I do agree that the current if (ERRNO) branch is confusing. I would
> > be for dropping the if (ERRNO) and checking the TST_ERR against ERRNO
> > unconditionally.
> >
> > Also note that the TEST() macro clears errno, so if a syscall fails but
> > does not report any error TST_ERR will end up 0 either way so there is
> > no need for having special handling for 0.
> 
> There is if the errno is set, but is undefined. Like if the resulting
> errno is platform or config dependent.
> 
> In the present case though we can just check for EINVAL. That is what
> the setsockopt man page indicates. Initially I wasn't sure if EFAULT
> were equally valid, but it seems not.

There was also an idea to add another version that would take an array
of possible errnos if that happens, but I fear that the complexity would
be getting out of hand if we keep adding features like that.

> I suppose we can fall back to using TEST() if the other case arises.

Yes.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz