Has uClibc passed the LTP tests?

[Carmelo AMOROSO]

Corinna Schultz wrote:
> Hello, all.
> 
> I'm trying to track down a bug in the fadvise functions. I'm seeing a  
> failure in the LTP tests for posix_fadvise and posix_fadvise64, on a  
> ppc 32 machine. The specific failures are:
> 
> * in the posix_fadvise64 tests, the function call is still returning  
> -1 on error and setting ERRNO. On my machine, the INTERNAL_SYSCALL  
> version of the function is not being called -- it's the  
> __syscall_fadvise64_64 version that's being called.
> 
> * in the posix_fadvise tests, the advice value the kernel is seeing is  
> corrupted - it sees 63794 for all values passed in (the tests send  
> each advice value from 0-5). Interestingly, if I run the tests using  
> strace, the value the kernel sees is 87, except for the first one,  
> where it correctly sees 0. The returns values are correct, as the  
> INTERNAL_SYSCALL code is being used in this case.
> 
> So I'm wondering if there has been a successful run of the LTP tests  
> on the various arches, and this is my problem, or if this is a new  
> issue.
> 
> My kernel is 2.6.16. I'm not sure what version of uClibc I'm using,  
> but it's some flavor of 0.9.28. I copied the most recent version of  
> posix_fadvise.c and posix_fadvise64.c from the cvs repository.
> 
> 
> -Corinna Schultz
> IBM LTC
> 
Hi COrinna,
please try adding #include <sysdep.h>... you should get 
INTERNALL_SYSCALL macro defined.
We are going to commit a fix for this.

Let me know,

Carmelo
> _______________________________________________
> uClibc mailing list
> uClibc at uclibc.org
> http://busybox.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uclibc
>