From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from Atcsqr.andestech.com (60-248-80-70.hinet-ip.hinet.net [60.248.80.70]) by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DCC8D3854156 for ; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 06:31:06 +0000 (GMT) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 sourceware.org DCC8D3854156 Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=andestech.com Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=andestech.com Received: from mail.andestech.com (ATCPCS16.andestech.com [10.0.1.222]) by Atcsqr.andestech.com with ESMTP id 28U6UlbW031786; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 14:30:47 +0800 (+08) (envelope-from peterlin@andestech.com) Received: from APC323 (10.0.12.98) by ATCPCS16.andestech.com (10.0.1.222) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.498.0; Fri, 30 Sep 2022 14:30:42 +0800 Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2022 14:28:46 +0000 From: Yu-Chien Peter Lin To: Florian Weimer CC: , , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] nptl: Fix typo in error message Message-ID: References: <20220929085738.12027-1-peterlin@andestech.com> <87o7uy7b3x.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87o7uy7b3x.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de> User-Agent: Mutt/2.2.6 (2022-06-05) X-Originating-IP: [10.0.12.98] X-DNSRBL: X-MAIL:Atcsqr.andestech.com 28U6UlbW031786 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DATE_IN_FUTURE_06_12,GIT_PATCH_0,KAM_DMARC_STATUS,RDNS_DYNAMIC,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,TXREP autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on server2.sourceware.org List-Id: On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 12:01:38PM +0200, Florian Weimer wrote: > * Yu Chien Peter Lin: > > > Signed-off-by: Yu Chien Peter Lin > > --- > > nptl/tst-setuid2.c | 4 ++-- > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/nptl/tst-setuid2.c b/nptl/tst-setuid2.c > > index aff3b1a97d..fed2671b01 100644 > > --- a/nptl/tst-setuid2.c > > +++ b/nptl/tst-setuid2.c > > @@ -77,7 +77,7 @@ run_on_thread (void (*func) (void)) > > > > ret = pthread_cond_signal (&cond_send); > > if (ret != 0) > > - FAIL ("pthread_mutex_lock (%s): %d", __func__, ret); > > + FAIL ("pthread_cond_signal (send): %d", ret); > > > > ret = pthread_mutex_lock (&mutex); > > if (ret != 0) > > @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ run_on_thread (void (*func) (void)) > > { > > ret = pthread_cond_wait (&cond_recv, &mutex); > > if (ret != 0) > > - FAIL ("pthread_mutex_wait (%s): %d", __func__, ret); > > + FAIL ("pthread_cond_wait (recv): %d", ret); > > } > > ret = pthread_mutex_unlock (&mutex); > > if (ret != 0) > > Maybe introduce xpthread_cond_signal in a separate patch and use > xpthread_cond_signal and xpthread_cond_wait instead? The latter > already exists. Hi, Florian I would introduce xpthread_cond_signal with a new patch, and also use test-driver.c, thanks for your suggestion. Best regards, Peter Lin