On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 15:46 -0800, Ryan Niebur wrote: > Package: linux-image-2.6-parisc64 Yes but which version? > Severity: important > Blocks: 558981 > > The attatched minimal test case shows these results: > > on my i386 machine, it correctly gives two different numbers: > $ gcc test.c; ./a.out > First: 1 > Second: 2 > > however on paer.debian.org (hppa): > $ gcc test.c; ./a.out > First: 1 > Second: 1 > > Based on the manpage of inotify_add_watch, it sounds like the correct > behavior is to have different numbers. It seems that the author of > inotify-tools also interpreted it that way. > > This bug is causing my package's tests to fail, which causes it to FTBFS: > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=558981 I think the test case is broken; why should two watches that don't exist at the same time have unique ids? You might as well test: fd1 = open("foo", O_RDONLY); close(fd1); fd2 = open("bar", O_RDONLY); assert(fd2 != fd1); Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part