On Thu, 2008-06-19 at 12:27 -0400, Nate Straz wrote:
> On Jun 18 17:44, Garrett Cooper wrote:
> > Summary of changes:
> >
> > 1. Move lib/* to lib/ltp; included non-m function fixes.
> > 2. Move several lib/*.h files to include/ (simplifies)
> > 3. Separate out libipc code used by hugemap and syscalls into
> > lib/ipc/{hugemap,syscalls} for modularity's sake. Remove relevant
> > directories and makefile refs. This was only done for modules with
> > present in ltp-base, not sctp/lib or kdump/lib.
> > 4. Move testcases/kernel/syscalls/lib to lib/testsuite.
> > 5. Remove relative path #includes muck for all test cases in
> > testcases/kernel/syscalls/ipc/.
> > 6. Insert "ia64 arch dependent" #warning's so that the compiling
> > individual is aware of some arch dependent assumptions in ipc syscalls
> > sourcecode.
> > 7. Punted a few noltp / uclinux targets in the process.
> > 8. Yanked out informational "type in make install" message.
> >
> > Questions and comments, welcome,
> > -Garrett
>
> I started looking at this and it took a few cleanup steps in order to
> get the tree back in order. I think LTP is such a large project, in
> file count and change rate, that we really should look at using
> something like git to manage the source. With patches this large,
I would definitely think about this after OLS is over. Even Kumar also
proposed it long back. Let me see how this can happen.
> touching so many files, it would be really nice to know that I'm
> applying the patch to the same source that Garrett is.
>
> That said, the tree builds with Garrett's patch. I think that the
> default target needs to be set to "all." There may be something a
> little strange where it runs the "install" target anyway. I still need
> some more time to look at it.
Thanks Nate for spending time to look into Garrett patches. I am
spending more time for ensuring build/run error-free patches of Yamato
(for the syscalls porting) and some other testcases that are on the
mailing list External/Internal.
I would really thank you once again if you can
look into all the
patches he is sending(i know you are already reviewing his huge Makefile
Infrastructure Patch). He also sent some patches for rectifying the
tst_res() and tst_resm() functions. I think you would be the best person
to judge the correctness of that Patch, as the bulk of that library
Infrastructure came from SGI and you were there in that thick of time. I
am referring to the mails with below headers(archives in sf.net is still
to turn up):
1) [LTP] tst_res(3) not doing as promised?
2) [LTP] [PATCH] Fix for lib/tst_res.c -- fix -m vs non-m reporting
functions
Regards--
Subrata
> Nate and his $0.02.
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
> It's the best place to buy or sell services for
> just about anything Open Source.
> http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
> _______________________________________________
> Ltp-list mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Check out the new SourceForge.net Marketplace.
It's the best place to buy or sell services for
just about anything Open Source.
http://sourceforge.net/services/buy/index.php
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
