On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:39 AM, Dave Jones <davej@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 14, 2014 at 11:32:53AM -0500, Jeff Moyer wrote: > > > > Can you write a test (or set of) for fstests that exercises this new > > > functionality? I'm not worried about performance, just > > > correctness.... > > > > On the subject of testing, I added support to trinity (attached, > > untested). That did raise one question. Do we expect applications to > > #include <linux/fs.h> to get the RWF_NONBLOCK definition? > > Trinity will at least need an addition to include/compat.h for > older headers that won't have the definition. Looks ok otherwise. > > Also, I usually sit on stuff like this until the syscall numbers are > in Linus tree. This is 3.19 stuff I presume ? > istr akpm picked up execveat recently, so if that goes in first, we'll > need to respin this anyway.. Yes, I am hoping to get it into 3.19. It's a large pain having to deal with other changes to the syscall code. On a unrelated note I just back to figuring out how to add this to xfstests. I got busy with other things the last few days. I'm still not quite sure how to write a test using the framework, the documentation (README) seams very XFS specific and otherwise the test seam to be be split between many different files / directories / C code / shell code. I might be me being slow... but it's just not obvious for me how to glue the whole thing together. -- Milosz Tanski CTO 16 East 34th Street, 15th floor New York, NY 10016 p: 646-253-9055 e: milosz@xxxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
