On 03/19/2015 10:13 AM, Sam Bobroff wrote:
> Check that a syscall made during an active transaction will fail with
> the correct failure code and that one made during a suspended
> transaction will succeed.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sam Bobroff <sam.bobr...@au1.ibm.com>
The test works.
> +
> +int tm_syscall(void)
> +{
> + SKIP_IF(!((long)get_auxv_entry(AT_HWCAP2) & PPC_FEATURE2_HTM));
> + setbuf(stdout, 0);
> + FAIL_IF(!t_active_getppid_test());
> + printf("%d active transactions correctly aborted.\n", TM_TEST_RUNS);
> + FAIL_IF(!t_suspended_getppid_test());
> + printf("%d suspended transactions succeeded.\n", TM_TEST_RUNS);
> + return 0;
> +}
> +
> +int main(void)
> +{
> + return test_harness(tm_syscall, "tm_syscall");
> +}
> +
There is an extra blank line at the end of this file. Interchanging return
codes of 0 and 1 for various functions make it very confusing along with
negative FAIL_IF checks in the primary test function. Control flow structures
like these can use some in-code documentation for readability.
+ for (i = 0; i < TM_RETRIES; i++) {
+ if (__builtin_tbegin(0)) {
+ getppid();
+ __builtin_tend(0);
+ return 1;
+ }
+ if (t_failure_persistent())
+ return 0;
or
+ if (__builtin_tbegin(0)) {
+ __builtin_tsuspend();
+ getppid();
+ __builtin_tresume();
+ __builtin_tend(0);
+ return 1;
+ }
+ if (t_failure_persistent())
+ return 0;
_______________________________________________
Linuxppc-dev mailing list
Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
