Re: [LTP] [PATCH] cleanup user space device-driver Makefiles

2009-03-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 02:42:17 Németh Márton wrote: +CFLAGS = -O2 -Wall -Wextra CFLAGS should always be appended, not set. optimization flags should never be added. -Wextra will cause failures with gcc-3.3 and older. +clean: + rm -f $(OBJS) + rm -f test_agp no point in

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] make acpi device-driver test compilable

2009-03-04 Thread Subrata Modak
On Mon, 2009-03-02 at 07:18 +0100, Németh Márton wrote: Make the acpi device-driver test compilable with Linux kernel 2.6.28. Completely drop supporting older kernels which are not compatible with 2.6.28. Signed-off-by: Márton Németh nm...@freemail.hu Thanks. Regards-- Subrata

Re: [LTP] inotify02 question

2009-03-04 Thread Francesco RUNDO
Ok, just to better describe my opinion (I hope without misunderstanding ;-) In the while loop we're analyzing, you rightly process the notified events with different checks.Ok, it is right. My suggest is to avoid to use also the check (with TFAIL) related to TST_COUNT as it will be of

Re: [LTP] ARCH depended compilation

2009-03-04 Thread Michal Simek
Hi Jiri, Also, the compiler really should set architecture spcific macros based on the target. I don't know full LTP history but I think that is primary focus on x86 where is target the same arch where is LTP compiled. Certainly not. Only RedHat-originated patches are i386+x86-64 only :)

Re: [LTP] inotify02 question

2009-03-04 Thread Francesco RUNDO
Andrew Vagin wrote: On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Francesco RUNDO wrote: Ok, just to better describe my opinion (I hope without misunderstanding ;-) In the while loop we're analyzing, you rightly process the notified events with different checks.Ok, it is right. My

Re: [LTP] inotify02 question

2009-03-04 Thread Andrew Vagin
On Wed, Mar 04, 2009 at 10:28:21AM +0100, Francesco RUNDO wrote: Ok, just to better describe my opinion (I hope without misunderstanding ;-) In the while loop we're analyzing, you rightly process the notified events with different checks.Ok, it is right. My suggest is to avoid to use

Re: [LTP] [PATCH] cleanup user space device-driver Makefiles

2009-03-04 Thread Németh Márton
Cleanup the Makefiles for the user space part of the device-driver tests. Add make clean. Signed-off-by: Márton Németh nm...@freemail.hu --- Index: testcases/kernel/device-drivers/agp/user_space/Makefile === RCS file:

Re: [LTP] ARCH depended compilation

2009-03-04 Thread Mike Frysinger
On Wednesday 04 March 2009 04:33:29 Michal Simek wrote: BTW: You haven't answer me a question who will do a patch for it (your sed command). Below is patch for your proposal. If you agree with it I'll create proper patch for Subrata. looks fine to me (ignoring line wrap issues). thanks! -mike

Re: [LTP] [SMACK] Simplified Mandatory Access Control test cases

2009-03-04 Thread Casey Schaufler
Subrata Modak wrote: Hi Casey, On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 19:08 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: Subrata Modak wrote: Hi Casey, Thanks for these tests. However there are some comments below: 1) There is a little bit of lack of documentation. Can you please attach atleast a README,

Re: [LTP] SCTP Functional Tests BREAK when updated from (http://sourceforge.net/projects/lksctp)

2009-03-04 Thread Vlad Yasevich
Subrata Modak wrote: Hi Sridhar, I downloaded lksctp-tools-1.0.9 from http://sourceforge.net/projects/lksctp to update the SCTP tests in LTP: http://ltp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/ltp/ltp/testcases/network/sctp/, The following patch would have served the update. However, i get some broken

Re: [LTP] [PATCH 1/4] ltp: posix message queue namespaces: first test

2009-03-04 Thread Subrata Modak
On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 08:15 -0600, Serge E. Hallyn wrote: Quoting Subrata Modak (subr...@linux.vnet.ibm.com): Thanks Serge Nadia for contributing these tests to LTP. I had one round of testing before merging them. Please see the results and the config file attached. Hi Subrata, did

Re: [LTP] [SMACK] Simplified Mandatory Access Control test cases

2009-03-04 Thread Subrata Modak
Hi Casey, On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 19:09 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: Subrata Modak wrote: Hi Casey, On Wed, 2009-02-25 at 19:08 -0800, Casey Schaufler wrote: Subrata Modak wrote: Hi Casey, Thanks for these tests. However there are some comments below: 1) There is a

Re: [LTP] ARCH depended compilation

2009-03-04 Thread Subrata Modak
Hi, On Wed, 2009-03-04 at 10:33 +0100, Michal Simek wrote: Hi Jiri, Also, the compiler really should set architecture spcific macros based on the target. I don't know full LTP history but I think that is primary focus on x86 where is target the same arch where is LTP compiled.