Preparing for the next release: call for testing

[Mike Frysinger]

On 02 Mar 2015 22:22, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 12:04:27PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On 02 Mar 2015 14:31, Dmitry V. Levin wrote:
> > > On s390, besides kernel bug with si_addr, all printed instruction pointers
> > > have 0x80000000 bit set.  If it isn't a kernel bug (and it doesn't look like
> > > one), then it's a strace bug in not taking some s390 address mapping
> > > feature into account.
> > 
> > since it's not a regression and no one has complained yet, and we know s390 is 
> > broken in at least one way, i think we just wait for the kernel guys to respond 
> > before we spend more time investigating.
> 
> OK, what should we do with the test on s390/s390x then? xfail or skip?

based on the current thread, it looks like we'll want to do the same as the ipc 
check on ppc/sparc ... namely, make it into a SKIP.
-mike

--- a/tests/pc.c
+++ b/tests/pc.c
@@ -12,6 +12,14 @@ int main(void)
 {
 	const unsigned long pagesize = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
 
+#ifdef __s390__
+	/*
+	 * The si_addr field is unreliable:
+	 * https://marc.info/?l=linux-s390&m=142515870124248&w=2
+	 */
+	return 77;
+#endif
+
 	/* write instruction pointer length to the log */
 	if (write(-1, NULL, 2 * sizeof(void *)) >= 0)
 		return 77;
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20150302/6f60b0ca/attachment.bin>