From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 15234 invoked by alias); 21 Aug 2013 16:30:17 -0000 Mailing-List: contact libc-ports-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: libc-ports-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 15215 invoked by uid 89); 21 Aug 2013 16:30:16 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-4.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,KHOP_RCVD_UNTRUST,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-User: qpsmtpd, 2 recipients Received: from relay1.mentorg.com (HELO relay1.mentorg.com) (192.94.38.131) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:30:16 +0000 Received: from svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com ([147.34.98.93]) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1VCBIU-0001Ya-DH from joseph_myers@mentor.com ; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:30:14 -0700 Received: from SVR-IES-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com ([137.202.0.108]) by svr-orw-fem-01.mgc.mentorg.com over TLS secured channel with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.4675); Wed, 21 Aug 2013 09:30:13 -0700 Received: from digraph.polyomino.org.uk (137.202.0.76) by SVR-IES-FEM-03.mgc.mentorg.com (137.202.0.108) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.2.247.3; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 17:30:12 +0100 Received: from jsm28 (helo=localhost) by digraph.polyomino.org.uk with local-esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VCBIQ-0005CI-9l; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:30:10 +0000 Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:30:00 -0000 From: "Joseph S. Myers" To: Mike Frysinger CC: , , Subject: Re: [PATCH] [RFC] hppa: add fanotify_mark In-Reply-To: <1377100993-9438-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> Message-ID: References: <1377100993-9438-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00024.txt.bz2 On Wed, 21 Aug 2013, Mike Frysinger wrote: > Another example of all the 64bit arches getting the definition via a > common file, but the 32bit ones all adding it by themselves and hppa > was missed. How about adding an architecture-independent testcase (Linux-specific, of course) for this function? I've no idea whether it can test any semantics of fanotify_init / fanotify_mark, or only that calls to them link OK, but in general when fixing bugs it's a good idea to add testcases that would have detected them, and both functions are in my list of untested symbols , which we need to add test coverage for bit by bit. -- Joseph S. Myers joseph@codesourcery.com