From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <libc-alpha-return-88588-listarch-libc-alpha=sources.redhat.com@sourceware.org>
Received: (qmail 33314 invoked by alias); 25 Dec 2017 19:13:01 -0000
Mailing-List: contact libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:libc-alpha-subscribe@sourceware.org>
List-Archive: <http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-help@sourceware.org>, <http://sourceware.org/ml/#faqs>
Sender: libc-alpha-owner@sourceware.org
Received: (qmail 33302 invoked by uid 89); 25 Dec 2017 19:13:00 -0000
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; auth=none
X-Virus-Found: No
X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SPF_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 spammy=
X-HELO: vmicros1.altlinux.org
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 2017 19:13:00 -0000
From: "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>
To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] tst-ttyname: skip the test when /dev/ptmx is not
 available
Message-ID: <20171225191256.GA8591@altlinux.org>
Mail-Followup-To: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
References: <20171225114806.GB4341@altlinux.org>
 <87a7y6u0u7.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="9amGYk9869ThD9tj"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87a7y6u0u7.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de>
X-SW-Source: 2017-12/txt/msg00888.txt.bz2


--9amGYk9869ThD9tj
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-length: 449

On Mon, Dec 25, 2017 at 07:19:44PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Dmitry V. Levin:
>=20
> > * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-ttyname.c (do_in_chroot_1): Skip the
> > test instead of failing in case of an error returned by posix_openpt.
>=20
> I think the test failure is real in this case.  I wouldn't it be?

No, /dev/ptmx is intentionally missing in the environment where this test
failed.  Do you suggest an explicit check for ENOENT?


--=20
ldv

--9amGYk9869ThD9tj
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-length: 801

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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=UTEE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--9amGYk9869ThD9tj--