On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 17:26 -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Davide Libenzi <[email protected]> > Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:17:20 -0800 (PST) > > > How sophisticated this has to be? And what's the expected ETA? The > > 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. > > Something along the lines of a smoke test is probably sufficient. > The platform folks just want to make sure they wired up the > syscall tables correctly, for the most part.
In the case of syscalls using TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK we want to make sure the architecture maintainer got a little bit more right than that -- but the sigmasking.c test case I posted earlier ought to be mostly sufficient for testing that, if the arch also switches to the generic sys_rt_sigsuspend(). -- dwmw2 - 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
