Mats Since these are POSIX tests, we need to find out what the 0100000 bit is, and whether it is a file status flag or file access mode defined in the fcntl.h. We have seen other systems erroneously setting other flags when F_SETFL is called
Btw, if you run the vrpt tool on the journal you will get out the test assertion and strategy with the failure. regards Andrew On Jul 29, 1:25pm in "fcntl F_SETFL, F_GET", Wichmann, Mats D wrote: > > Itanium tests on fcntl(fd, F_SETFL, ...) fail because > of (apparently) bad expectations. And the spec seems > to be a little imprecise in this area. Before I push > this up as a bugreport, I'd like some other views. > > The three tests fcntl 6, 7, 8 test several combinations > of setting file status flags. > > To give an example of the test method, the first part of > test 6 opens a file with O_CREAT|O_RDWR. It then does an > fcntl call to add O_NONBLOCK to the flags, and an fcntl > F_GETFL to fetch the new flags, and tests that they are > exactly equal to O_RDWR|O_NONBLOCK > > The failure mode is that on my test system, the flags > before are 0100002 and after they are 0104002 - in > other words, the requsted flag got set correctly, but > the test fails because "after" is not equal to 04002. > > Now what about that 0100000 bit? > > The SUS says (for F_SETFL): "Set the file status flags, > defined in <fcntl.h>, for the file description associated > with fildes from the corresponding bits from the third > argument, arg, taken as type int. Bits corresponding to > the file access mode and the oflag values that are set in > arg are ignored." > > The flags defined in fcntl.h for use in this context are > O_APPEND, O_DSYNC, O_RSYNC, O_SYNC and O_NONBLOCK > (O_DSYNC and O_RSYNC are tagged Realtime). > > The Linux manpage is more explicit, suggesting that the > test is wrong: "Only O_APPEND, O_NONBLOCK and O_ASYNC > may be set; the other flags are unaffected". > > In the absence of special wording, however, the SUS > applies, and it's silent on the possible presence of > any other bits beyond file status and file access; > it does say that any effort to *set* any such bits is > unspecified. > > So is this a test suite problem? Spec problem? Both? > > I also notice that the set of valid file status flags > seems to differ between the SUS and Linux. > > Mats > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email [EMAIL PROTECTED]
