CC: Andrew Vagin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
(I CCed Andrew, the author of those testcases, but strangely
the CC got lost..)
Subrata Modak wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-03-26 at 11:49 +0800, Li Zefan wrote:
>> The test result:
>>
>> [..snip..]
>> inotify02 8 PASS : get event: wd=1 mask=800 cookie=0 len=0 name=""
>> inotify02 9 FAIL : don't get event: mask=0
>>
>> The test purposes of these 2 testcases:
>>
>> rename yourself IN_MOVE_SELF
>> rename back IN_MOVE_SELF
>>
>> Referring to the man inotify(7):
>>
>> If successive output inotify events produced on the inotify
>> file
>> descriptor are identical (same wd, mask, cookie, and name) then
>> they
>> are coalesced into a single event.
>>
>> So when the time interval between the above 2 events is short enough, We'll
>> get only one event, that's why the test failed.
>>
>> So should we remove 9th testcase, or arrange those cases in a different
>> order,
>> or sleep() some time between the 2 events, or ...?
>
> I would prefer sleeping between the events rather than removing 9th
> testcase ;-) What do you all think ??
>
I prefer this too in that it won't break the test purpose. If no one has an
objection on it, a patch will come up soon. :)
> Regards--
> Subrata
>
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;164216239;13503038;w?http://sf.net/marketplace
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
