[LTP] [PATCH] Add tst_get_max_clocks() routine based on tst_kconfig_check()

[Cyril Hrubis]

Hi!
> +int tst_get_max_clocks(void)
> +{
> +	static const char * const kconf_aux[] = {"CONFIG_POSIX_AUX_CLOCKS=y", NULL};
> +
> +	if (!tst_kconfig_check(kconf_aux))
> +		return MAX_CLOCKS + MAX_AUX_CLOCKS;
> +	else
> +		return MAX_CLOCKS;
> +}
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clock_adjtime/clock_adjtime02.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clock_adjtime/clock_adjtime02.c
> index 0c5e6ac21..ba62bf716 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clock_adjtime/clock_adjtime02.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/clock_adjtime/clock_adjtime02.c
> @@ -76,11 +76,11 @@ struct test_case {
>  
>  struct test_case tc[] = {
>  	{
> -	 .clktype = TST_MAX_CLOCKS,
> +	 .clktype = 0,
>  	 .exp_err = EINVAL,
>  	},
>  	{
> -	 .clktype = TST_MAX_CLOCKS + 1,
> +	 .clktype = 0,
>  	 .exp_err = EINVAL,
>  	},
>  	{
> @@ -223,6 +223,9 @@ static void setup(void)
>  			tc[i].lowlimit /= hz;
>  		}
>  	}
> +
> +	tc[0].clktype = tst_get_max_clocks();
> +	tc[1].clktype = tst_get_max_clocks() + 1;

We usually frown upon hardcoded array indexes. There are couple of ways
how to avoid that. The easiest is probably to store a pointers to clock
types instead of the values in the test_case structure. Have a look at
how we pass the fd in accept01.c for an example.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz