Davide Libenzi <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > > > "Luck, Tony" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Various new syscalls which are trickling their way Linuswards and will > >>> need > >>> testing and wiring up once they get there: > >> > >> Are there test-suites for any/all of these new calls? > >> > > > > That's an excellent point. > > > > Guys, architecture maintainers need test suites to verify that the syscalls > > actually work as they wire them up. Please share. A stable URL would be > > preferred - something which can go into the changlog or conceivably into > > the kernel source. > > How sophisticated this has to be?
umm - test basic functionality - test things which should fail: syscall arguments out-of-bounds, negative syscall args, etc. invalid fd. valid fd but for the wrong type of file. - if you can, something which will test the 32bit->64bit->32bit conversions which 32-bit userspace on 64-bit kernel needs to do. > And what's the expected ETA? Well the patch isn't even in -mm yet and you still have an argument to win ;) Once it's been in -mm for a week or so it'd be nice to have a little test app please. > epoll_pwait is really a wrapper around epoll_wait (that did not change at > all), so the test in this case should just make sure that the signal > behaviour is the one expected. - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-arch" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
