The close_range() test in particular has been confusing a lot of
partners. I think the sys_epoll_test.cpp idiom is the clearest of the
ones in use, so let's use that everywhere. (I haven't actually touched
the SysV IPC tests, because if we do touch them, _deleting_ them --
since all those syscalls are not allowed on Android -- is probably the
change to be made!)
I'm on the fence about factoring this idiom out into a macro. There
should never be too many of these, and we should probably be removing
them? Is anyone still running the current bionic tests on 4.3 kernels
without membarrier(2), and if they are --- why?!
For now though, I haven't removed any of our existing tests; I've just
moved them over to the sys_epoll_test.cpp style.
Test: treehugger
Change-Id: Ie69a0bb8f416c79957188e187610ff8a3c4d1e8f
We've talked about this many times in the past, but partners struggle to
understand "expected 38, got 22" in these contexts, and I always have to
go and check the header files just to be sure I'm sure.
I actually think the glibc geterrorname_np() function (which would
return "ENOSYS" rather than "Function not implemented") would be more
helpful, but I'll have to go and implement that first, and then come
back.
Being forced to go through all our errno assertions did also make me
want to use a more consistent style for our ENOSYS assertions in
particular --- there's a particularly readable idiom, and I'll also come
back and move more of those checks to the most readable idiom.
I've added a few missing `errno = 0`s before tests, and removed a few
stray `errno = 0`s from tests that don't actually make assertions about
errno, since I had to look at every single reference to errno anyway.
Test: treehugger
Change-Id: Iba7c56f2adc30288c3e00ade106635e515e88179
