On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 18:06 +0200, Jiri Palecek wrote: > On Tuesday 23 June 2009 16:50:42 Subrata Modak wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > As I don't know what are all the error reporting options LTP have, I > > > changed it to CONF. We can change it accordingly to need. Can we report > > > it as BROKEN, as set_mempolicy is preventing the get_mempolicy test to > > > run? > > > > Muni, > > > > Jiriś patch checked in today should fix this: > > > > Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] Define some syscall numbers in the > > linux_syscall_numbers.h file, not to get build failures or crappy > > results on other architectures which lack them >
Updating/cleaning linux_syscall_numbers.h is a good idea always. Regards-- Subrata > Well, yes and no. The patch does handle the situation (sort of), but it still > results in a TBROK (which is wrong, I admit). I think this area (ie. syscalls > which are or aren't present in some kernels) should be handled more > systematically, especially after what I went through uploading the last > version of ltp to Debian. I will think of it and produce some example patches > after I send other patches I have in the queue. > > Regards > Jiri Palecek ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Ltp-list mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
