hi Thorsten I agree , after reviewing the specs and the tests, you are correct for readv_L:22, and 23, these should be classified as TSDs (test suite deficiencies) regards Andrew
On Feb 1, 1:54pm in "Re: LSB.os/readv_L 2", Thorsten Kukuk wrote: > On Fri, Feb 01, Thorsten Kukuk wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > >From readv_L 22 test: > > > > readv(5, iov, 0) did not behave as expected > > RETURN VALUES: expected: -1, observed: 0 > > ERRNO VALUES: expected: 22 (EINVAL), observed: 0 (NO ERROR) > > > > As far as I understand POSIX, readv with count=0 may fail, but must > > not. So the test is wrong. > > I'm right or do we here misread POSIX? > > The same for readv_L 23: iovcnt may fail if it is greater than IOV_MAX, > but must not. I think we should waive both tests if our interpretation > is correct. > > Thorsten > > -- > Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ [EMAIL PROTECTED] > SuSE GmbH Deutschherrenstr. 15-19 D-90429 Nuernberg > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED] >-- End of excerpt from Thorsten Kukuk
