From now on, I'll be agitating more to get man pages provided more with new
syscalls and ther kernel-userland interfaces. That will mean either I twist
developers arms to write pages ;-), or I write them myself, with help from
them. I do think that man-pages, if well written, are often
Quoting Michael Kerrisk ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
On Wed, Jul 16, 2008 at 11:23 AM, Masatake YAMATO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From now on, I'll be agitating more to get man pages provided more with new
syscalls and ther kernel-userland interfaces. That will mean either I
twist
developers arms
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Subrata Modak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Dear Hisashi San,
Since we have already embarked on our path to mutual co-operation in
Linux testing and test cases development, i would like to discuss some
of my ideas, which i think is capable of adding shot-in-the
For this to happen, we need to make our test cases ready when the
corresponding kernel features are in -mm tree. Let me know your ideas on
this.
Part of the problem here is knowing when interface changes have occurred.
Seeing new system calls in a release is easy. But, for the project to be
released.
Every users wants to use less bugs kernel, wants to know what difference
happens if it exists.
Hisashi
送信者 ： Michael Kerrisk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
主題 ： Re: [LTP] Crackerjack and Linux Test Project
受信日 ：08/07/15 21:39
属性 ： なし
On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Subrata Modak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 12:31 +0900, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
Oh Yes. You are correct. I did not look in to that aspect at all. I just did
a comparison of whatever we have at *testcases/kernel/syscalls* and what
they have in *Crackerjack*. I am listing down my comments here:
1) ftruncate64
On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 3:35 PM, Subrata Modak [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tue, 2008-06-17 at 12:31 +0900, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
Oh Yes. You are correct. I did not look in to that aspect at all. I
just did
a comparison of whatever we have at *testcases/kernel/syscalls* and
what
they
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 11:20 AM, Masatake YAMATO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
(More people are added to Cc by Subrata, so I'll keep the field
in spite of my last mail.)
And here goes the list of syscall test cases that are additionally in
Crackerjack and can be included in LTP. Please verify
Oh Yes. You are correct. I did not look in to that aspect at all. I just did
a comparison of whatever we have at *testcases/kernel/syscalls* and what
they have in *Crackerjack*. I am listing down my comments here:
O.k. I'll focus on *testcases/kernel/syscalls*. So the porting task becomes
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 3:41 PM, Masatake YAMATO [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh Yes. You are correct. I did not look in to that aspect at all. I just
did
a comparison of whatever we have at *testcases/kernel/syscalls* and what
they have in *Crackerjack*. I am listing down my comments here:
Oh Yes. You are correct. I did not look in to that aspect at all. I just did
a comparison of whatever we have at *testcases/kernel/syscalls* and what
they have in *Crackerjack*. I am listing down my comments here:
1) ftruncate64
Comments: We have ftruncate at
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 18:35 +0900, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
Subrata, I'll take my spare time.
Well, you have absolutely every right to do that.
(But please don't expect too much, I got a baby:-)
Congrats. That´s a very good news.
I find out that most of the test cases in Crackerjack has
On Sat, 2008-06-14 at 13:12 +0530, Subrata Modak wrote:
On Fri, 2008-06-13 at 18:35 +0900, Masatake YAMATO wrote:
Subrata, I'll take my spare time.
Well, you have absolutely every right to do that.
(But please don't expect too much, I got a baby:-)
Congrats. That´s a very good news.
13 matches
Mail list logo
