> Those failures are known issues and probably too subtle to be fixed in > kernel side. However, You could try to apply the following two patches > in attachments which let the test pass at least for RHEL. > > Patch (1/2) expect_fail.patch > Patch (2/2) expect_fail_more.patch >
Cai, Did you take the diff against the latest CVS ? I found failures in applying both the patches: $ patch --dry-run -p1 < ../../../../../expect_fail.patch patching file proc01.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 133 (offset 1 line). Hunk #3 FAILED at 172. Hunk #4 FAILED at 196. 2 out of 6 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file proc01.c.rej $ patch --dry-run -p1 < ../../../../../expect_fail_more.patch patching file proc01.c Hunk #1 succeeded at 212 with fuzz 2 (offset -32 lines). Hunk #2 FAILED at 254. 1 out of 2 hunks FAILED -- saving rejects to file proc01.c.rej Can you please resend me these against the latest CVS. Sorry for bothering you much. Regards-- Subrata > Thanks, > CaiQian > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
