@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ f00f f00f
crash01 crash01
# Generate random code and execute it. Read f00f comment,
# this test lockup SunOS,WindowsNT,etc. in seconds..
-crash02 crash02
+crash02 crash02 -v 2
# Generate random syscalls and execute them, less probability
# to hose your system, but still.
mem01 mem01 -r
@@ -430,13 +430,12 @@ void try_one_crash(int try_num)
arg6 = rand_long();
arg7 = rand_long();
- if (x_opt) {
- if (verbose_level >= 1)
- printf("%04d: syscall(%ld, %#lx, %#lx, %#lx, %#lx, "
- "%#lx, %#lx, %#lx)\n",
- try_num, sysno, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5,
- arg6, arg7);
- } else {
+ if (x_opt || verbose_level >= 1)
+ printf("%04d: syscall(%ld, %#lx, %#lx, %#lx, %#lx, %#lx, "
+ "%#lx, %#lx)\n", try_num, sysno, arg1, arg2, arg3,
+ arg4, arg5, arg6, arg7);
+
+ if (!x_opt) {
syscall(sysno, arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5, arg6, arg7);
record_errno(errno);
}
Verbose output from crash02 will be useful for actually reporting bugs triggered by the test. With default verbosity level, it's difficult to figure out which syscall arguments crashed the system even if you know the random seed and can easily re-run `crash02 -xv 2` on a system that uses the same rand() implementation. Signed-off-by: Martin Doucha <mdoucha@suse.cz> --- Changes in v2: Bring -x implementation in line with usage description. runtest/crashme | 2 +- testcases/misc/crash/crash02.c | 13 ++++++------- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)