On 02 Mar 2015 22:22, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 12:04:27PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote: > > On 02 Mar 2015 14:31, Dmitry V. Levin wrote: > > > On s390, besides kernel bug with si_addr, all printed instruction pointers > > > have 0x80000000 bit set. If it isn't a kernel bug (and it doesn't look > > > like > > > one), then it's a strace bug in not taking some s390 address mapping > > > feature into account. > > > > since it's not a regression and no one has complained yet, and we know s390 > > is > > broken in at least one way, i think we just wait for the kernel guys to > > respond > > before we spend more time investigating. > > OK, what should we do with the test on s390/s390x then? xfail or skip?
based on the current thread, it looks like we'll want to do the same as the ipc
check on ppc/sparc ... namely, make it into a SKIP.
-mike
--- a/tests/pc.c
+++ b/tests/pc.c
@@ -12,6 +12,14 @@ int main(void)
{
const unsigned long pagesize = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
+#ifdef __s390__
+ /*
+ * The si_addr field is unreliable:
+ * https://marc.info/?l=linux-s390&m=142515870124248&w=2
+ */
+ return 77;
+#endif
+
/* write instruction pointer length to the log */
if (write(-1, NULL, 2 * sizeof(void *)) >= 0)
return 77;
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________ Strace-devel mailing list Strace-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/strace-devel
