From owner-freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 8 17:28:10 2006 Return-Path: X-Original-To: emulation@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-emulation@FreeBSD.ORG Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B65316A5CB; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:28:10 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from gcorcoran@rcn.com) Received: from smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.157.102]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCCC643D53; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 17:28:09 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from gcorcoran@rcn.com) Received: from mr08.lnh.mail.rcn.net ([207.172.157.28]) by smtp02.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2006 13:28:09 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,277,1157342400"; d="scan'208"; a="317000232:sNHT36946024" Received: from smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net (smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net [207.172.4.11]) by mr08.lnh.mail.rcn.net (MOS 3.7.5a-GA) with ESMTP id HFF15653; Sun, 8 Oct 2006 13:28:08 -0400 (EDT) Received: from 207-172-55-230.c3-0.tlg-ubr5.atw-tlg.pa.cable.rcn.com (HELO [10.56.78.130]) ([207.172.55.230]) by smtp01.lnh.mail.rcn.net with ESMTP; 08 Oct 2006 13:28:08 -0400 X-IronPort-AV: i="4.09,277,1157342400"; d="scan'208"; a="289828560:sNHT35157996" Message-ID: <452937D6.2040500@rcn.com> Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:39:34 -0400 From: Gary Corcoran User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.7 (Windows/20060909) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Alexander Leidinger References: <20061008184042.2cfe20d1@Magellan.Leidinger.net> In-Reply-To: <20061008184042.2cfe20d1@Magellan.Leidinger.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=mr08.lnh.mail.rcn.net X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A090204.452934CE.0008,ss=1,fgs=0, ip=207.172.4.11, so=2006-05-09 23:27:51, dmn=5.2.113/2006-07-26 Cc: emulation@freebsd.org, rdivacky@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Results of doing a LTP test run with the p4 patches X-BeenThere: freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Development of Emulators of other operating systems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:28:10 -0000 Alexander Leidinger wrote: > Hi, > > a test run for 2.4.2 reveals: > > -clone05 FAIL 1 > +clone05 PASS 0 > > -fcntl17 PASS 0 > +fcntl17 FAIL 1 > > -setpriority04 FAIL 2 > +setpriority04 PASS 0 > > -wait402 FAIL 2 > +wait402 PASS 0 > > -waitpid04 FAIL 1 > +waitpid04 PASS 0 > > -Total Failures: 164 > +Total Failures: 162 > > > The fcntl17 test output is: > ---snip--- > fcntl17 0 INFO : Enter preparation phase > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 3 starting > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 3 pid 45870 locked > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 3 resuming > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 3 lockw err 35 > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 3 exiting > fcntl17 0 INFO : Enter preparation phase > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 1 starting > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 1 pid 45868 locked > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 1 resuming > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 1 unlocked > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 1 exiting > fcntl17 0 INFO : Enter preparation phase > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 2 starting > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 2 pid 45869 locked > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 2 resuming > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 2 lockw locked > fcntl17 0 INFO : child 2 exiting > fcntl17 0 INFO : Enter preparation phase > fcntl17 0 INFO : Exit preparation phase > fcntl17 0 INFO : Enter block 1 > fcntl17 1 FAIL : locking pid is wrong, should be -19668 is 45868 > fcntl17 0 INFO : do_test failed child 1 > fcntl17 2 FAIL : locking pid is wrong, should be -19667 is 45869 > fcntl17 0 INFO : do_test failed child 2 > fcntl17 3 FAIL : locking pid is wrong, should be -19666 is 45870 > fcntl17 0 INFO : do_test failed child 3 > fcntl17 4 FAIL : locking pid is wrong, should be -19667 is 45869 > fcntl17 5 FAIL : locking pid is wrong, should be -19666 is 45870 > fcntl17 0 INFO : Block 1 FAILED > fcntl17 0 INFO : Exit block 1 > ---snip--- > > I'm a little bit puzzled. The PIDs correspond to the PIDs of the > childs, but the expectation looks completely wrong. Those look like somebody is using a signed 16-bit int when it should be an unsigned int. -19668 (as 16 bits unsigned) is the same as 45868 ... Gary