[PATCH v4 1/2] tests: add xetpriority.test

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:41:30AM +0800, Fei Jie wrote:
[...]
> --- /dev/null
> +++ b/tests/xetpriority.c
> @@ -0,0 +1,51 @@
> +#include "tests.h"
> +#include <sys/syscall.h>
> +
> +#if defined __NR_getpriority && defined __NR_setpriority
> +
> +# include <errno.h>
> +# include <stdio.h>
> +# include <sys/time.h>
> +# include <sys/resource.h>
> +# include <unistd.h>
> +
> +int
> +main(void)
> +{
> +	const int pid = getpid();
> +	int rc = syscall(__NR_getpriority, PRIO_PROCESS,
> +			 (unsigned long) 0xffffffff00000000 | pid);
> +	printf("getpriority(PRIO_PROCESS, %d) = %d\n",
> +	       pid, rc);
> +
> +	rc = syscall(__NR_setpriority, PRIO_PROCESS,
> +	     (unsigned long) 0xffffffff00000000 | pid,
> +	     (unsigned long) 0xffffffff00000000);
> +
> +	printf("setpriority(PRIO_PROCESS, %d, 0) = ", pid);
> +	if (rc == 0) {
> +		printf("%d\n", rc);
> +	} else {
> +		const char *errno_text;
> +		switch (errno) {
> +			case EACCES:
> +				errno_text = "EACCES";
> +				break;
> +			case ENOSYS:
> +				errno_text = "ENOSYS";
> +				break;
> +			default:
> +				errno_text = "EPERM";
> +		}

That's another extreme.  I don't believe this setpriority call could fail
with any error besides EACCES or EPERM.  Please either prove me wrong or
simplify this code to errno == EPERM ? "EPERM" : "EACCES".


-- 
ldv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20160311/809b5284/attachment.bin>