[LTP] [PATCH] open_posix: remove pthread_kill/6-1

[Jan Stancek]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 4:31 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:

> Hi!
> > diff --git
> a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/pthread_kill/assertions.xml
> b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/pthread_kill/assertions.xml
> > index 2289b9bfbb2e..fa74c312bebb 100644
> > ---
> a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/pthread_kill/assertions.xml
> > +++
> b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/pthread_kill/assertions.xml
> > @@ -16,10 +16,6 @@
> >    <assertion id="5" tag="ref:XSH6:33594:33595 pt:THR">
> >      No signal shall be sent if the pthread_kill() function fails.
> >    </assertion>
> > -  <assertion id="6" tag="ref:XSH6:33598:33599 pt:THR">
> > -    [ESRCH] No thread could be found corresponding to that specified by
> > -    the given thread ID.
> > -  </assertion>
> >    <assertion id="7" tag="ref:XSH6:33600:33600 pt:THR">
> >      [EINVAL] The value of the sig argument is an invalid or unsupported
> >      signal number.
> > diff --git
> a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/pthread_kill/coverage.txt
> b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/pthread_kill/coverage.txt
> > index 03dc3d5a718a..8cfa3d8b6ba3 100644
> > ---
> a/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/pthread_kill/coverage.txt
> > +++
> b/testcases/open_posix_testsuite/conformance/interfaces/pthread_kill/coverage.txt
> > @@ -6,6 +6,5 @@ Assertion     Status
> >  3            YES
> >  4            IMPLICITLY tested by assertions 6 and 7.
> >  5            IMPLICITLY tested by assertions 6 and 7.
> > -6            YES
> >  7            YES
> >  8            WON'T test. No way to interrupt the pthread_kill() call.
>
>
> Shouldn't we just flip the YES to WON'T test in the coverage?
>

I dropped it because it seemed pointless to keep around wrong assertions.
I don't have strong opinion here, I can change it to WON'T.



>
> I'm not sure how to maintain the assertions or coverage files to be
> honest.
>
> Otherwise it looks good. The ESRCH return was always a recommendation
> and not an requirement.
>
> --
> Cyril Hrubis
> chrubis@suse.cz
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20211006/2af60ab2/attachment.htm>