Instead of using fork(), call syscall(__NR_fork) in step-fork.c
to avoid looping on powerpc arch in libc.
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico vfal...@redhat.com
---
--- ptrace-tests/tests/step-fork.c 2009-12-01 17:17:14.0 +0100
+++ ptrace-tests/tests/step-fork.c 2009-12-01 17:25
On Tue, Dec 01, 2009 at 05:37:48PM +0100, Veaceslav Falico wrote:
- if (fork () == 0)
+
+ /*
+ * We can't use fork() directly because on powerpc it loops inside libc
on
+ * ptrace over utrace. See http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/28/11
+ */
+ if (syscall(__NR_fork
Instead of using fork(), call syscall(__NR_fork) in step-fork.c
to avoid looping on powerpc arch in libc.
Signed-off-by: Veaceslav Falico vfal...@redhat.com
---
--- a/ptrace-tests/tests/step-fork.c2009-12-01 17:17:14.0 +0100
+++ b/ptrace-tests/tests/step-fork.c2009-12-01 18:35
On Wed, Nov 25, 2009 at 01:17:15PM -0800, Roland McGrath wrote:
That's certainly good to hear. If you are pretty confident about that,
then I am quite happy to consider nonregression on all of ptrace-tests the
sole gating test for kernel changes. We just don't want to wind up having
other
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 06:25:24PM +0100, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/26, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
On 11/26, Ananth N Mavinakayanahalli wrote:
step-fork: step-fork.c:56: handler_fail: Assertion `0' failed.
/bin/sh: line 5: 17325 Aborted ${dir}$tst
FAIL: step-fork
