| Message ID | 20170823135732.12899-1-miquel.raynal@free-electrons.com |
|---|---|
| State | Superseded |
| Headers | show |
Hi, On 08/23/2017 03:57 PM, Miquel Raynal wrote: > Forbid the use of -c1 in nandpagetest which limits the number of blocks > to use at one. In that case, get_first_and_last_block() will return the > same id for both the first and the last blocks. In erasecrosstest(), > the logic is: > - erase/write/read/verify first block > - erase/write again first block > - erase *last* block > - read/verify first block > The case 'first == last' leads to erasing the block before reading it. > Hence the test will fail with no actual reason. > So if some existing automated test setup were to use this, it would (as of right now) *always* fail and terminate with EXIT_FAILURE. > The patch does not forbid the use of -c1 as it could do it in > process_options() with a errmsg_die(). Instead, it warns the user and > uses a second block in order to avoid risking to break existing scripts. > But wouldn't exactly that change the behavior of such a setup by suddenly having all tests succeed? If this combination of options always fails anyway, wouldn't it be more appropriate to terminate with an error message in process_options instead? Thanks, David
Hi David, > > The case 'first == last' leads to erasing the block before reading > > it. Hence the test will fail with no actual reason. > > > So if some existing automated test setup were to use this, it would > (as of right now) *always* fail and terminate with EXIT_FAILURE. > > > The patch does not forbid the use of -c1 as it could do it in > > process_options() with a errmsg_die(). Instead, it warns the user > > and uses a second block in order to avoid risking to break existing > > scripts. > But wouldn't exactly that change the behavior of such a setup by > suddenly having all tests succeed? > > If this combination of options always fails anyway, wouldn't it be > more appropriate to terminate with an error message in > process_options instead? I though you would prefer to do not exit with an error but I it is ok for me, I will resend the patch, with an error thrown in process_options(). Regards, Miquèl
diff --git a/tests/mtd-tests/nandpagetest.c b/tests/mtd-tests/nandpagetest.c index 4145ef7..ef6c126 100644 --- a/tests/mtd-tests/nandpagetest.c +++ b/tests/mtd-tests/nandpagetest.c @@ -452,6 +452,12 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) if (ebcnt < 0) ebcnt = (mtd.eb_cnt - peb) / (skip + 1); + if (ebcnt == 1) { + fprintf(stderr, PROGRAM_NAME + " cannot run on a single block, will use 2 instead.\n"); + ebcnt = 2; + } + if (peb >= mtd.eb_cnt) return errmsg("physical erase block %d is out of range!", peb);
Forbid the use of -c1 in nandpagetest which limits the number of blocks to use at one. In that case, get_first_and_last_block() will return the same id for both the first and the last blocks. In erasecrosstest(), the logic is: - erase/write/read/verify first block - erase/write again first block - erase *last* block - read/verify first block The case 'first == last' leads to erasing the block before reading it. Hence the test will fail with no actual reason. The patch does not forbid the use of -c1 as it could do it in process_options() with a errmsg_die(). Instead, it warns the user and uses a second block in order to avoid risking to break existing scripts. Signed-off-by: Miquel Raynal <miquel.raynal@free-electrons.com> --- tests/mtd-tests/nandpagetest.c | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+)