[LTP] [PATCh v2] clock_gettime04: print more info to help debugging

[Petr Vorel]

Hi Li, Viresh,

> On 09-03-21, 08:00, Li Wang wrote:
> > We catch some sporadically failures[1] like below, but we don't know which
> > test loop it comes from. So adding more prints to help locate issue.

> >   tst_test.c:1286: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> >   vdso_helpers.c:76: TINFO: Couldn't find vdso_gettime64()
> >   clock_gettime04.c:157: TPASS: CLOCK_REALTIME: Difference between successive readings is reasonable
> >   clock_gettime04.c:150: TFAIL: CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE: Difference between successive readings greater than 5 ms (1): 8
> >   clock_gettime04.c:157: TPASS: CLOCK_MONOTONIC: Difference between successive readings is reasonable
> >   clock_gettime04.c:150: TFAIL: CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE: Difference between successive readings greater than 5 ms (0): 5
> >   clock_gettime04.c:157: TPASS: CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW: Difference between successive readings is reasonable
> >   clock_gettime04.c:157: TPASS: CLOCK_BOOTTIME: Difference between successive readings is reasonable

> > After patching, it will show more details about the iteration:

> >   tst_test.c:1288: TINFO: Timeout per run is 0h 05m 00s
> >   vdso_helpers.c:76: TINFO: Couldn't find vdso_gettime64()
> >   clock_gettime04.c:158: TPASS: CLOCK_REALTIME: Difference between successive readings is reasonable for following variants:
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO or syscall with libc spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - syscall with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - gettimeofday
> >   clock_gettime04.c:158: TPASS: CLOCK_REALTIME_COARSE: Difference between successive readings is reasonable for following variants:
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO or syscall with libc spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - syscall with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:158: TPASS: CLOCK_MONOTONIC: Difference between successive readings is reasonable for following variants:
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO or syscall with libc spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - syscall with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:158: TPASS: CLOCK_MONOTONIC_COARSE: Difference between successive readings is reasonable for following variants:
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO or syscall with libc spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - syscall with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:158: TPASS: CLOCK_MONOTONIC_RAW: Difference between successive readings is reasonable for following variants:
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO or syscall with libc spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - syscall with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:158: TPASS: CLOCK_BOOTTIME: Difference between successive readings is reasonable for following variants:
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO or syscall with libc spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - syscall with old kernel spec
> >   clock_gettime04.c:162: TINFO:   - vDSO with old kernel spec

Sorry for putting my opinion late. Instead of repeating variants (duplicity)
I'd prefer just print variants once at the beginning + print which variant
failed.

BTW Some time ago I planned to print test variants in the library,
so it does not have to be copy pasted in every test which uses variants.
Variants could deserve some code optimisation anyway.

Kind regards,
Petr