Re: [PATCH v2 2/3] Mutex: add unit tests for new type

[kemi <kemi dot wang at intel dot com>]

On 2019/1/1 上午1:42, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
> On 20/12/18 11:45 AM, Kemi Wang wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Kemi Wang <kemi.wang@intel.com>
> 
> Please add a ChangeLog entry and a more detailed description of this change.
> 

sure.

>> ---
>>   nptl/Makefile            |  8 ++++----
>>   nptl/tst-initializers1.c | 11 +++++++----
>>   nptl/tst-mutex5b.c       |  2 ++
>>   nptl/tst-mutex7b.c       |  2 ++
>>   4 files changed, 15 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>>   create mode 100644 nptl/tst-mutex5b.c
>>   create mode 100644 nptl/tst-mutex7b.c
>>
>> diff --git a/nptl/Makefile b/nptl/Makefile
>> index 997da5e..1f6ecd4 100644
>> --- a/nptl/Makefile
>> +++ b/nptl/Makefile
>> @@ -242,10 +242,10 @@ LDLIBS-tst-minstack-throw = -lstdc++
>>     tests = tst-attr1 tst-attr2 tst-attr3 tst-default-attr \
>>       tst-mutex1 tst-mutex2 tst-mutex3 tst-mutex4 tst-mutex5 tst-mutex6 \
>> -    tst-mutex7 tst-mutex9 tst-mutex10 tst-mutex5a tst-mutex7a \
>> -    tst-mutex7robust tst-mutexpi1 tst-mutexpi2 tst-mutexpi3 tst-mutexpi4 \
>> -    tst-mutexpi5 tst-mutexpi5a tst-mutexpi6 tst-mutexpi7 tst-mutexpi7a \
>> -    tst-mutexpi9 \
>> +    tst-mutex7 tst-mutex9 tst-mutex10 tst-mutex5a tst-mutex5b tst-mutex7a \
>> +    tst-mutex7b tst-mutex7robust tst-mutexpi1 tst-mutexpi2 tst-mutexpi3 \
>> +    tst-mutexpi4 tst-mutexpi5 tst-mutexpi5a tst-mutexpi6 tst-mutexpi7 \
>> +    tst-mutexpi7a tst-mutexpi9 \
>>       tst-spin1 tst-spin2 tst-spin3 tst-spin4 \
>>       tst-cond1 tst-cond2 tst-cond3 tst-cond4 tst-cond5 tst-cond6 tst-cond7 \
>>       tst-cond8 tst-cond9 tst-cond10 tst-cond11 tst-cond12 tst-cond13 \
>> diff --git a/nptl/tst-initializers1.c b/nptl/tst-initializers1.c
>> index a8fdac1..3677cc0 100644
>> --- a/nptl/tst-initializers1.c
>> +++ b/nptl/tst-initializers1.c
>> @@ -24,6 +24,7 @@
>>   pthread_mutex_t mtx_normal = PTHREAD_MUTEX_INITIALIZER;
>>   pthread_mutex_t mtx_recursive = PTHREAD_RECURSIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP;
>>   pthread_mutex_t mtx_errorchk = PTHREAD_ERRORCHECK_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP;
>> +pthread_mutex_t mtx_queuespinner = PTHREAD_QUEUESPINNER_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP;
>>   pthread_mutex_t mtx_adaptive = PTHREAD_ADAPTIVE_MUTEX_INITIALIZER_NP;
>>   pthread_rwlock_t rwl_normal = PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER;
>>   pthread_rwlock_t rwl_writer
>> @@ -39,20 +40,22 @@ do_test (void)
>>       return 2;
>>     if (mtx_errorchk.__data.__kind != PTHREAD_MUTEX_ERRORCHECK_NP)
>>       return 3;
>> -  if (mtx_adaptive.__data.__kind != PTHREAD_MUTEX_ADAPTIVE_NP)
>> +  if (mtx_queuespinner.__data.__kind != PTHREAD_MUTEX_QUEUESPINNER_NP)
>>       return 4;
>> -  if (rwl_normal.__data.__flags != PTHREAD_RWLOCK_PREFER_READER_NP)
>> +  if (mtx_adaptive.__data.__kind != PTHREAD_MUTEX_ADAPTIVE_NP)
>>       return 5;
>> +  if (rwl_normal.__data.__flags != PTHREAD_RWLOCK_PREFER_READER_NP)
>> +    return 6;
>>     if (rwl_writer.__data.__flags
>>         != PTHREAD_RWLOCK_PREFER_WRITER_NONRECURSIVE_NP)
>> -    return 6;
>> +    return 7;
>>     /* <libc-lock.h> __libc_rwlock_init definition for libc.so
>>        relies on PTHREAD_RWLOCK_INITIALIZER being all zeros.  If
>>        that ever changes, <libc-lock.h> needs updating.  */
>>     size_t i;
>>     for (i = 0; i < sizeof (rwl_normal); i++)
>>       if (((char *) &rwl_normal)[i] != '\0')
>> -      return 7;
>> +      return 8;
>>     return 0;
>>   }
>>   diff --git a/nptl/tst-mutex5b.c b/nptl/tst-mutex5b.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..9da54ea
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/nptl/tst-mutex5b.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> +#define TYPE PTHREAD_MUTEX_QUEUESPINNER_NP
>> +#include "tst-mutex5.c"
>> diff --git a/nptl/tst-mutex7b.c b/nptl/tst-mutex7b.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 0000000..c2c1410
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/nptl/tst-mutex7b.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@
>> +#define TYPE PTHREAD_MUTEX_QUEUESPINNER_NP
>> +#include "tst-mutex7.c"
>>
>