From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from holomorphy.com ([207.189.100.168]:8635 "EHLO holomorphy.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262293AbUDDLIF (ORCPT ); Sun, 4 Apr 2004 07:08:05 -0400 Date: Sun, 4 Apr 2004 04:07:56 -0700 From: William Lee Irwin III Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] Consolidate sys32_select Message-ID: <20040404110756.GB791@holomorphy.com> References: <200404040204.03594.arnd@arndb.de> <200404040222.41413.arnd@arndb.de> <20040404122404.54329a2e.ak@suse.de> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040404122404.54329a2e.ak@suse.de> To: Andi Kleen Cc: Arnd Bergmann , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, 4 Apr 2004 02:22:40 +0200 Arnd Bergmann wrote: >> sys32_select has seven mostly but not exactly identical versions, >> so consolidate them as compat_sys_select. Based on the ppc64 >> implementation, which most closely resembles sys_select. >> Passes relevant LTP test cases on x86_64. On Sun, Apr 04, 2004 at 12:24:04PM +0200, Andi Kleen wrote: > I'm a bit dubious about LTP - often their test cases are very poor > and just check EFAULT behaviour. For testing it's better to just boot > a 32bit distribution and make sure that at least some X desktop > works. That said your patches look fine to me. > -Andi I can second that one; I've seen stuff that "passes LTP" but blatantly flunks rather simplistic off-the-cuff a priori sanity checks. One example that stands out is a recent patch ppl were rather foolishly trying to get my endorsement on that pandered to (ir)Rational crap code. I've also found LTP to be insufficient/useless in a number of userspace ABI compatibility tests as well, where running a different distro sufficed and full-blown LTP did not. -- wli