[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t v2] intel_gvtg_test: Handle system(3) return value.

[Tvrtko Ursulin]

On 08/11/2017 12:52, Petri Latvala wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 08, 2017 at 12:47:43PM +0000, Tvrtko Ursulin wrote:
>> From: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
>>
>> Avoid the build warning by checking the pkill either did not find
>> any guests or managed to send a signal to all of them.
>>
>> v2: Inspect system(3) return value properly. (Petri Latvala)
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Tvrtko Ursulin <tvrtko.ursulin at intel.com>
> 
> Reviewed-by: Petri Latvala <petri.latvala at intel.com>
> 
> Someone(tm) can follow this up with a patch that changes it to use
> igt_terminate_process...

Better suited to actual owners of this file I think. I was only 
distracted by the compile warning. Since it is a bigger task  - question 
of case comparison, full vs substring, mismatching return codes between 
two implementations of igt_terminate_process...

Regards,

Tvrtko

> 
>> ---
>>   tools/intel_gvtg_test.c | 5 ++++-
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/intel_gvtg_test.c b/tools/intel_gvtg_test.c
>> index 7a29fbdde7cd..659b7956725c 100644
>> --- a/tools/intel_gvtg_test.c
>> +++ b/tools/intel_gvtg_test.c
>> @@ -144,7 +144,10 @@ static void create_guest(void)
>>   
>>   static void destroy_all_guest(void)
>>   {
>> -    system("pkill qemu");
>> +	int ret = system("pkill qemu");
>> +
>> +	igt_assert(ret >= 0 && WIFEXITED(ret));
>> +	igt_assert(WEXITSTATUS(ret) == 0 || WEXITSTATUS(ret) == 1);
>>   }
>>   
>>   static void remove_vgpu(void)
>> -- 
>> 2.14.1
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Intel-gfx mailing list
>> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
> _______________________________________________
> Intel-gfx mailing list
> Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
> https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
>