Re: Re* [PATCH 0/4] t: replace incorrect test_must_fail usage (part 5)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Taylor Blau <me@xxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Hmm. I say this as somebody who just re-rolled a series to add two
> 'test_might_fail umask 022' lines, so am a little disappointed to learn
> that this is not considered to be idiomatic.
> ...
> Junio: do you want another reroll of that series? :/

The one I saw and remember was two new umask calls protected in POSIXPERM
prerequisite but without test-might-fail involved.

Perhaps there is nothing to reroll?  Or perhaps I am not checking my
mailbox often enough?



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux