From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from x35.xmailserver.org ([69.30.125.51]:39905 "EHLO x35.xmailserver.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1161139AbWASBRW (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Jan 2006 20:17:22 -0500 Received: from [10.107.17.130] by x35.dev.mdolabs.com with [XMail 1.23 ESMTP Server] id for from ; Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:17:20 -0800 Date: Wed, 18 Jan 2006 17:17:20 -0800 (PST) From: Davide Libenzi Subject: Re: new syscalls In-Reply-To: <20060118133629.1cda96fd.akpm@osdl.org> Message-ID: References: <20060118133629.1cda96fd.akpm@osdl.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Sender: linux-arch-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Andrew Morton Cc: "Luck, Tony" , linux-arch@vger.kernel.org, JANAK DESAI , Ulrich Drepper , David Woodhouse , David Howells , Christoph Lameter List-ID: On Wed, 18 Jan 2006, Andrew Morton wrote: > "Luck, Tony" wrote: >> >>> Various new syscalls which are trickling their way Linuswards and will need >>> testing and wiring up once they get there: >> >> Are there test-suites for any/all of these new calls? >> > > That's an excellent point. > > Guys, architecture maintainers need test suites to verify that the syscalls > actually work as they wire them up. Please share. A stable URL would be > preferred - something which can go into the changlog or conceivably into > the kernel source. 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. - Davide