Has uClibc passed the LTP tests?

Filippo ARCIDIACONO filippo.arcidiacono at st.com
Mon Sep 8 07:49:38 UTC 2008


 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: uclibc-bounces at uclibc.org 
> [mailto:uclibc-bounces at uclibc.org] On Behalf Of Khem Raj
> Sent: Friday, September 05, 2008 11:59 PM
> To: Corinna Schultz
> Cc: uclibc at uclibc.org
> Subject: Re: Has uClibc passed the LTP tests?
> 
> On (05/09/08 15:24), Corinna Schultz wrote:
> > Hello, all.
> > 
> > I'm trying to track down a bug in the fadvise functions. 
> I'm seeing a 
> > failure in the LTP tests for posix_fadvise and 
> posix_fadvise64, on a 
> > ppc 32 machine. The specific failures are:
> > 
> > * in the posix_fadvise64 tests, the function call is still returning
> > -1 on error and setting ERRNO. On my machine, the INTERNAL_SYSCALL 
> > version of the function is not being called -- it's the
> > __syscall_fadvise64_64 version that's being called.
> > 
> > * in the posix_fadvise tests, the advice value the kernel 
> is seeing is 
> > corrupted - it sees 63794 for all values passed in (the tests send 
> > each advice value from 0-5). Interestingly, if I run the 
> tests using 
> > strace, the value the kernel sees is 87, except for the first one, 
> > where it correctly sees 0. The returns values are correct, as the 
> > INTERNAL_SYSCALL code is being used in this case.
> > 
> > So I'm wondering if there has been a successful run of the 
> LTP tests 
> > on the various arches, and this is my problem, or if this is a new 
> > issue.
> 
> Some architectures have their own implementations for fadvise 
> functions. ARM for sure has its own.
> and IIRC fadvise tests pass on uclibc ARM.
Also on SH arch fadvise tests works fine.
> 
> > 
> > My kernel is 2.6.16. I'm not sure what version of uClibc I'm using, 
> > but it's some flavor of 0.9.28. I copied the most recent version of 
> > posix_fadvise.c and posix_fadvise64.c from the cvs repository.
> 
> ppc should be using the common versions of these files 
> currently. One thing that might not be correct is the number 
> of arguments passed to system call macro INTERNAL_SYSCALL 
> macro which means like arm, mips etc. powerpc needs its own 
> implementation for these functions in uclibc. 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> -Khem
> 

Filippo.
> _______________________________________________
> uClibc mailing list
> uClibc at uclibc.org
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
> 




More information about the uClibc mailing list