Hi,
> On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:24 AM, wrote:
>> From: Michal Simek
>>
>> I added support for testing ramfs and add together
>> tests for nfs, tmpfs and ramfs.
>
> [...]
>
> Hi Michal,
>
> I'm looking at this code to solve another interesting problem, but
> just out of curiosity -- why did you
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 5:50 PM, Henry Yei wrote:
> Yes, I had just noticed this as well. Since it was "passing", it took awhile
> to spot.
>
> Returning pass even with tst_resm(TFAIL,.. Being called must have something
> to do with the forking, but I'm not familiar with how the LTP framework dea
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 6:24 AM, wrote:
> From: Michal Simek
>
> I added support for testing ramfs and add together
> tests for nfs, tmpfs and ramfs.
[...]
Hi Michal,
I'm looking at this code to solve another interesting problem, but
just out of curiosity -- why did you #define the constants in
Yes, I had just noticed this as well. Since it was "passing", it took awhile
to spot.
Returning pass even with tst_resm(TFAIL,.. Being called must have something to
do with the forking, but I'm not familiar with how the LTP framework deals with
that.
In any case, I've create this patch for o
Michal,
This is a known issue. If you look at the manpages it states the following
under the BUGS section:
Linux is not careful to distinguish between the EACCES and EPERM
error returns. On the other hand, POSIX.1-2001 is buggy in its
error description for utimes().
utimes01 passes o
On Wed, 2009-07-22 at 19:36 -0400, Mark Ver wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Just recently downloaded the 20090630 version LTP. But it looks like
> there is a new testcase "eventfd2_03" included as part of default
> which is getting a compile problem and causing the LTP build to abort
> on s390x architecture:
>
On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:43 PM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> Ok. I have the time now so I'll install F11 amd64 and see what
>> happens. Something leads me to think that the build toolchain is
>> fubared, but that's just a hunch, as my copy of F10 (the last time I
>> ran the build) worked.
>> Thanks,
>> -G
On Aug 6, 2009, at 12:24 PM, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Kumar
> Gala wrote:
>>
>> On Aug 5, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Lucio Correia wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kumar,
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 13:33 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
I get the following compile error:
make[4
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:07 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
>
> On Aug 5, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Lucio Correia wrote:
>
>> Hi Kumar,
>>
>> On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 13:33 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>>> I get the following compile error:
>>>
>>> make[4]: Leaving directory `/root/ltp/testcases/kernel/syscalls/
>>> fstat
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 7:52 AM, Paul Larson wrote:
> The lib6 tests seem to fail the first pass through building for me
> because ranlib does not seem to get set correctly at any point. This
> seems to fix it up for me.
Fixed on HEAD moments ago:
gcoo...@orangebox /scratch/ltp-dev2/ltp $ cvs dif
On Thu, Aug 6, 2009 at 9:18 AM, Kumar Gala wrote:
> I'm seeing this on fedora 11 on ppc64:
>
> make[3]: Leaving directory `/root/ltp/testcases/network/ipv6'
> make[3]: Entering directory `/root/ltp/testcases/network/lib6'
> cc -Wall -I../../../include -g -D_GNU_SOURCE -c -o runcc.o runcc.c
> ar
I'm seeing this on fedora 11 on ppc64:
make[3]: Leaving directory `/root/ltp/testcases/network/ipv6'
make[3]: Entering directory `/root/ltp/testcases/network/lib6'
cc -Wall -I../../../include -g -D_GNU_SOURCE -c -o runcc.o runcc.c
ar cr runcc.a runcc.o
runcc.a
make[3]: runcc.a: Command not foun
Hi,
In addition to the below Link discussion
Date: 16 Jul 2009
http://www.mail-archive.com/ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net/msg07506.html
patch is not yet committed to LTP CVs.
as per test case Description
/*/
* Implementation performs mapping
On Aug 5, 2009, at 12:52 PM, Lucio Correia wrote:
> Hi Kumar,
>
> On Wed, 2009-07-29 at 13:33 -0500, Kumar Gala wrote:
>> I get the following compile error:
>>
>> make[4]: Leaving directory `/root/ltp/testcases/kernel/syscalls/
>> fstat'
>> make[4]: Entering directory `/root/ltp/testcases/kernel
The lib6 tests seem to fail the first pass through building for me
because ranlib does not seem to get set correctly at any point. This
seems to fix it up for me.
Thanks,
Paul Larson
Fix build problem with lib6 tests
Signed-off-by: Paul Larson
---
diff --git a/testcases/network/lib6/Makefi
Subrata
Resending the patch, after the modification. Let me know if this is
acceptable
Thanks
Yeehaw
This Patch fixes bug in the test cases chmod05.c and fchmod05.c. The test case uses 2 UserIds nobody and bin.
The issue is observed when one of the UserId is the supplementary group Id
Hi,
I am getting fault on x86/Microblaze for ppoll. It is run only one
testcase than ends.
Have you ever met with this problem?
Thanks,
Michal
[mon...@monstr ppoll]$ ./ppoll01
ppoll01 0 TINFO : (case00) START
EXPECT: return value(ret)=(N >= 0) errno=0 (Success), r/w check=OK
RESULT: retur
Hi,
I have noticed UNTESTED behavior with sched_setparam/26-1.c test case
under open_posix_testsuite.
Test needs to be executed as non-root user.
So I have changed user id from root to non-root user by adding
set_nonroot() function.
Now test case got PASSED.
I have attached patch and results bef
I can confirm that fault too - on Microblaze and x86 too.
The funny thing is that this test failed but it is reported as passed in
log.
Michal
> FYI...
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Subrata Modak
> Date: Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Issue with rt_sigqueueinfo
Hi All,
Can you please run utimes01 test? I see there on x86 and Microblaze this
fault.
There is different errno value.
Thanks,
Michal
EXPECT: return value(ret)=-1 errno=13 (Permission denied)
RESULT: return value(ret)=-1 errno=1 (Operation not permitted)
[r...@monstr utimes]# ./utimes01
utimes
rohit verma wrote:
> PFA the patch for waitid02
>
I can confirm that this patch fixed problem with waitid02.
It is just confirmation - I haven't look at style/patch in detail - just
works and pass on Microblaze
Subrate: Do you want to add it to cvs?
Michal
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2009 at 5:35 PM, Su
21 matches
Mail list logo
