[lsb-discuss] Resending tests for libc APIs

Stew Benedict stewb at linux-foundation.org
Mon Oct 29 09:07:38 PDT 2007


On Thu, 25 Oct 2007, Pavan Naregundi wrote:

> Hi,
> 
>     Sorry for sending patch in binary. Once again I am sending the
> patches of tests for inet_aton(lts_li18nux2k.l1-3.1.90.patch) and
> posix_fallocate, posix_fadvise, posix_madvise(lts_vsx-pcts-3.1.90.patch)
> libc APIs.
> 

Applied the patches to my local branch of runtime test, with no issues.
Tests built fine, I took a brief look at the test code and don't see 
anything controversial there.

Question: I'm wondering why you chose to put the inet_aton test in LI18N? 
Seems like LSB.os or some other module might be more appropriate.

Test results on SLES10 (IA32):


/tset/POSIX.os/files/posix_fadvise/T.posix_fadvise 3 FAIL
520|131 3 00016383 1 1|posix_fadvise returned Success instead of EINVAL
220|131 3 1 09:22:34|FAIL
(passed -1 as advice, when manpage says 0-7 are the only valid values)

/tset/POSIX.os/files/posix_madvise/T.posix_madvise 4 FAIL
520|132 4 00016384 1 1|posix_madvise returned Success instead of EINVAL
220|132 4 1 09:22:35|FAIL
410|132 4 1 09:22:35|IC End
(passed -1 as advice, when manpage says 0-4 are the only valid values)

It would seem the test method is valid, but the behavior, at least on this 
platform does not agree with the man page. Did the tests pass on your test 
platform?

Anyone else have any comments?

The rest of the tests all passed.

I'll also need to adjust the test counts for the 17 additional tests, as 
tjreport is complaining about the counts, but that's just a minor 
housekeeping chore.


-- 
Stew Benedict
The Linux Foundation



More information about the lsb-discuss mailing list