From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from pentafluge.infradead.org ([213.146.154.40]:37349 "EHLO pentafluge.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161320AbWASFAz (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Jan 2006 00:00:55 -0500 Subject: Re: new syscalls From: David Woodhouse In-Reply-To: <20060118.172639.15928930.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20060118133629.1cda96fd.akpm@osdl.org> <20060118.172639.15928930.davem@davemloft.net> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 16:00:48 +1100 Message-Id: <1137646848.30084.81.camel@localhost.localdomain> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: "David S. Miller" Cc: davidel@xmailserver.org, akpm@osdl.org, tony.luck@intel.com, linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, janak@us.ibm.com, drepper@redhat.com, dhowells@redhat.com, christoph@lameter.com List-ID: On Wed, 2006-01-18 at 17:26 -0800, David S. Miller wrote: > From: Davide Libenzi > Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:17:20 -0800 (PST) > > > How sophisticated this has to be? And what's the expected ETA? The > > epoll_pwait is really a wrapper around epoll_wait (that did not change at > > all), so the test in this case should just make sure that the signal > > behaviour is the one expected. > > Something along the lines of a smoke test is probably sufficient. > The platform folks just want to make sure they wired up the > syscall tables correctly, for the most part. In the case of syscalls using TIF_RESTORE_SIGMASK we want to make sure the architecture maintainer got a little bit more right than that -- but the sigmasking.c test case I posted earlier ought to be mostly sufficient for testing that, if the arch also switches to the generic sys_rt_sigsuspend(). -- dwmw2