Preparing for the next release: call for testing

[Dmitry V. Levin]

On Mon, Mar 02, 2015 at 04:13:07PM -0500, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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.

Agreed.

> --- 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

BTW, what does this "&w=2" parameter mean?  All marc.info URLs open fine
without it, but virtually everybody use it anyway.


-- 
ldv
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 181 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.strace.io/pipermail/strace-devel/attachments/20150303/7d52a592/attachment.bin>