diff options
author | Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com> | 2010-08-02 16:28:03 +0000 |
---|---|---|
committer | Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrill@OARcorp.com> | 2010-08-02 16:28:03 +0000 |
commit | e686517e6b775c78afd00d179774f44b8e110db3 (patch) | |
tree | b3976a5e92af0e7c19db276734403f304af9ac3b /rtems-coverage | |
parent | 6b2e547fd9aa0b592f37c8a84c24578205f8f379 (diff) |
2010-08-02 Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrilL@OARcorp.com>
* Explanations.txt: Update. Remove old ones and add a number of new
entries.
Diffstat (limited to 'rtems-coverage')
-rw-r--r-- | rtems-coverage/ChangeLog | 5 | ||||
-rw-r--r-- | rtems-coverage/Explanations.txt | 264 |
2 files changed, 134 insertions, 135 deletions
diff --git a/rtems-coverage/ChangeLog b/rtems-coverage/ChangeLog index 93a3d44..d933cf3 100644 --- a/rtems-coverage/ChangeLog +++ b/rtems-coverage/ChangeLog @@ -1,3 +1,8 @@ +2010-08-02 Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrilL@OARcorp.com> + + * Explanations.txt: Update. Remove old ones and add a number of new + entries. + 2010-07-14 Joel Sherrill <joel.sherrilL@OARcorp.com> * do_coverage, rtems_items.sed: Include more info in summary. diff --git a/rtems-coverage/Explanations.txt b/rtems-coverage/Explanations.txt index 7fd9e3c..0f2178c 100644 --- a/rtems-coverage/Explanations.txt +++ b/rtems-coverage/Explanations.txt @@ -1,222 +1,216 @@ -bspcmdline_getparam.c:67 +privateenv.c:43 Simple Test Case -Need a test case to return NULL. +free_user_env is never called when (env == &rtems_global_user_env). It is +possible that this path is impossible but that will require analysis of the +callers. Since this is static, it is quite possible this is covered by +the callers. +++ -bspcmdline_getparamrhs.c:36 +imfs_chown.c:46 Simple Test Case -Need a test case to return NULL. This looks like a parameter of the form -"LHS" with no "=" or "RHS". +Not root and not owner. Please try to cover all branch paths. +++ -mknod.c:44 +imfs_fchmod.c:42 Simple Test Case -Call mknod with a mode of 0 +Not root and not owner. Please try to cover all branch paths. +++ -imfs_fifo.c:100 -Bharath Suri -IMFS_fifo_ioctl should be hit when fifo tests are done if not -check why. +imfs_fifo.c:61 +Requires Discussion +This is an error return path which only returns an error when +pipe_release() returns an error but pipe_release() can't return +an error. Maybe pipe_release() should be changed to void. +++ -imfs_fifo.c:125 -Bharath Suri -IMFS_fifo_lseek should be hit when fifo tests are done if not -check why. -+++ - -imfs_fifo.c:69 -Bharath Suri -IMFS_fifo_read should be hit when fifo tests are done if not -check why. -+++ - -imfs_fifo.c:84 -Bharath Suri -IMFS_fifo_write should be hit when fifo tests are done if not -check why. -+++ - -fifo.c:553 -Bharath Suri -pipe_ioctl should be hit when fifo tests are done if not check -why. +imfs_getchild.c:51 +Simple Test Case +Appprently we never call this with ".." for the parent directory. +++ -fifo.c:582 -Bharath Suri -pipe_lseek should be hit when fifo tests are done if not check -why. +imfs_fsunmount.c:86 +Ask Chris Johns +I think he wrote this code and can probably identify the test case. +++ -fifo.c:395 -Bharath Suri -pipe_read should be hit when fifo tests are done if not check -why. +imfs_fsunmount.c:93 +Ask Chris Johns +I think he wrote this code and can probably identify the test case. +++ -fifo.c:467 -Bharath Suri -pipe_write should be hit when fifo tests are done if not check -why. +imfs_initsupp.c:55 +Requires Discussion +I think this is an error case that cannot be reached. The +bytes_per_block is set by confdefs.h and there are error checks +in that to prevent a bad value. +++ -memfile.c:400 -Bharath Suri -IMFS_memfile_remove_block should be hit when fifo tests are done -if not check why. +imfs_mount.c:44 +Unreachable? +We need to ask Chris Johns about this. I believe this is a +case where the error checking has been done by the system +call layer. I analyzed the "file handlers" callbacks for +guarantees on parameters. This indicates the same analysis +needs to happen for "file system handlers." +++ -check.c:376 +imfs_debug.c:43 Simple Test Case -Stack_check_Dump_threads_usage should be hit in same test as new -stack check test for report. +Need to do an IMFS_dump after loading a tarfile from memory. +I think this is a simple addition to tar01. +++ -check.c:356 +imfs_debug.c:54 Simple Test Case -Stack_check_find_high_water_mark should be hit in same test as -new stack check test for report. +Need to do an IMFS_dump on an IMFS filesystem which has a very large +file in it. I think this is a simple addition to one of the existing +IMFS tests which creates a large file. +++ -check.c:470 +imfs_debug.c:88 Simple Test Case -rtems_stack_checker_report_usage_with_plugin should be hit in -same test as new stack check test for report. +We need to do an IMFS_dump on an IMFS filesystem which has a bad node type +in it. This may require peeking behind the curtain and changing a value. +++ -privateenv.c:114 -Simple Test Case -free_user_env and rtems_libio_share_private_env new test. +imfs_rename.c:40 +Discuss +I think this is either a simple test or unreachable code. We need +to discuss this to figure out which. +++ -privateenv.c:33 -Simple Test Case -free_user_env and rtems_libio_share_private_env new test. +imfs_unlink.c:51 +Discuss +I think this is either a simple test or unreachable code. We need +to discuss this to figure out which. +++ -check.c:215 -Simple Test Case -Stack_check_report_blown_task Should be in stack check test check -why not hit. +imfs_unmount.c:45 +Discuss +I think this is either a simple test or unreachable code. We need +to discuss this to figure out which. +++ -assocnamebad.c:40 -Simple Test Case -rtems_assoc_name_bad called from new; may want to add for -associations. -+++ +imfs_unmount.c:52 +Discuss +I think this is either a simple test or unreachable code. We need +to discuss this to figure out which. ++++ -ioman.c:70 +dup2.c:51 Simple Test Case -rtems_io_lookup_name added to existing io dev stub test ?sp19? -+++ +This looks like we never get to the bottom to actually call fcntl() +which I take to mean that we do not have a test for a working call +to dup2(). -error.c:201 -Simple Test Case -rtems_panic, rtems_verror, rtems_error: New test for collection -of rtems error reportin routines. +But we need to be careful because fcntl(F_DUPFD) which is called has +slightly different semantics. I suspect that fcntl(F_DUPFD) is wrong. +See fcntl.c:55 for more details. +++ -error.c:109 -Simple Test Case -rtems_panic, rtems_verror, rtems_error: New test for collection -of rtems error reportin routines. +fcntl.c:55 +Discuss +I question that this is correct. We are calling this from dup2() +and the semantics are slightly different. fcntl is +I suspect that by adding a shared routine and calling it from fcntl() +and and dup2() we can fix this. +++ -error.c:182 +fcntl.c:83 Simple Test Case -rtems_panic, rtems_verror, rtems_error: New test for collection -of rtems error reportin routines. +We need a test setting close on exec. +++ -getpwent.c:272 +fcntl.c:143 Simple Test Case -Simple +None of the file system specific handlers have ever returned an error here. +++ -getpwent.c:413 +newlibc_exit.c:89 Simple Test Case -Simple +libc_wrapup() is never called when the system state is down. +++ -getpwent.c:441 +readv.c:106 Simple Test Case -Simple +The count needs to be -1 in one of the requests. Also add a test for +0 value at the same time since it appears that is a missing branch +condition. +++ -fcntl.c:186 -Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from +getpwent.c:127 +Discuss +I think this is detecting whether or not the read can be fulfilled +from the buffer. But I am not sure. +++ -getpid.c:43 +getpwent.c:141 Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from +I think this is a matter of putting in a VERY large number in +a numeric field. This is detecting overflow. I think a long +string of 9's will do most of this. +++ -_gettod.c:84 +getpwent.c:142 Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from + +See getpwent.c:141 +++ -link.c:103 +getpwent.c:112 Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from + +This is actually the error case at line 103 (*nleft < 2). I think this +will be hit by having a password entry which does not have enough +characters left in the user's return buffer while something is +being copied into it. +++ -_realloc_r.c:28 +writev.c:104 Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from +This is a case of needing 0 values in the write iov entries. +++ -stat.c:100 +writev.c:113 Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from +This is a case of needing negative values in the write iov entries. +++ -unlink.c:115 +vprintk.c:125 Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from +0x6f is a 'o'. It looks like we do not have a printk test which uses %o. +++ -getpwent.c:406 +imfs_load_tar.c:112 Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from +Need to make sure one of the tar tests is configured with the IMFS +and the other is configured with fifoIMFS. +++ -getpwent.c:263 +imfs_load_tar.c:151 Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from +We apparently only have a relative symbolic link. We need to include +one which has an absolute path. This will be a broken symlink on the +host but resolve fine on the target. +++ -getpwent.c:254 -Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from +imfs_load_tar.c:169 +Medium Test Case +The eval for make must fail. We will have to ask Jennifer how to +make this call fail. +++ -getpwent.c:247 -Simple Test Case -This is a function wrapper add a test case calling it where the -wrapped function is called from +rtems_mkdir.c:102 +Email Sebastian +Sebastian needs to write a test case for this. +++ -malloc_deferred.c:57 -Simple Test Case -New test to Free memory from timer service routine. There is a -send signal from TSR test that can be copied Consider adding test -template for single operation from tsr. Talk to Joel before -implementing. +rtems_mkdir.c:110 +Email Sebastian +Sebastian needs to write a test case for this. +++ +rtems_mkdir.c:124 +Email Sebastian +Sebastian needs to write a test case for this. ++++ |