On 06.11.2016 15:13, Robert Elz wrote: > Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2016 13:07:45 +0100 > From: Kamil Rytarowski <n54%gmx.com@localhost> > Message-ID: <acc66609-045d-48f6-55e6-24ef217e15a0%gmx.com@localhost> > > > | Please file a PR for it. > > Will do. > > | I will reference it in ATF tests - I'm > | preparing a combination of all possible cases. > > Sounds good. > > | Please make sure that all t_ptrace tests still pass. > > Currently, with my modified kernel, it is failing (probebly expectedly: > the waitpid(WNONHANG) that is done in the parent when the child has > stopped, before exiting (before the debugger has allowed it to exit). > Everything else (the t_wait tests, the rest of t_ptrace - at least up > to where it fails, and Nicolas' wait4 (to which I have added a whole > bunch more cases testing wait4() (and implicitly wait() wait3() and waitpid()) > and wait6() and waitid() (while waitid() is implemented via wait6() > its return values are not identical, so I thought that worth explicitly > testing) and all of those cases work (the modified wait4.c also now > creates a child, waits(WNOHANG) before it exits, and then waits for it > to exit using (one of) wait4() wait6() or waitid() - all of those tests > seem to be doing what we want. > > So, it is just the stopped process (when we are not the debugger) that > is failing now. > > I believe I see what is happening there, but have to work out a clean way > to fix it (what the test is expecting is what I believe should happen.) > > kre > Thank you for your investigation. I'm right now working on t_ptrace extension testing all wait(2) variations. My tests for t_wait are ready and I'm going to commit them now. Thank you for PR.
Description: OpenPGP digital signature