On Thu, Jun 19, 2008 at 10:11 AM, Subrata Modak
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 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.
One important thing wrong about that patch with tst_res.c -- it
appears that I'm popping messages in a LIFO order instead of grabbing
them in a FIFO order (accidental, I admit), so the messages are coming
out backwards when printing to a file...
-Garrett
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
