Khem Raj wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 15, 2008 at 4:55 AM, Carmelo AMOROSO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Corinna Schultz wrote:
>>> Quoting Carmelo AMOROSO <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>>> a colleague of mine is right now working to produce a patch for
>>>> posix_fadvise to fix all LTP tests using posix_fadvise[64].
>>>>
>>>> Indeed LTP tests expect that, when posix_fadvise[64] fails,
>>>> it should return as return value an error code (-errno) instead
>>>> of simply setting properly errno and returning -1.
>>> Did you see my earlier message, detailing the errors I'm seeing? I have
>>> very little experience with this low-level programming, and don't really
>>> know how to begin fixing it, so if you have people already working on it,
>>> I'll happily wait for your patch. :) Do you have an estimate of when your
>>> patch will be available?
>>>
>>> -Corinna
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Hi Corinna, may you try the attached patch.
>> It worked fine for NPTL branch solving all LTP posix_fadvise tests.
>> Let me know, so we can enqueue for commit.
>>
>> Thanks to Filippo for having fixed this.
>
> It needs to to be tested on all arches which use common/posix_fadvise*
> implementation.
>
> Thanks
>
> -Khem
>
Well, waiting fro feedback from other archs... I did it on sh4 ;-)
Carmelo
_______________________________________________
uClibc mailing list
[email protected]
http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
