Hi Ben, thanks for the response. On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 12:12:44AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Sun, 2009-12-20 at 15:46 -0800, Ryan Niebur wrote: > > Package: linux-image-2.6-parisc64 > > Yes but which version? > the version that paer is running (apparently linux-image-2.6.32-trunk-parisc64 2.6.32-1) and whatever version peri is running. > > 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: > the manpage makes it sound like it should be unique for each filename. and if the test case is broken, then I don't understand why this only fails on hppa. > fd1 = open("foo", O_RDONLY); > close(fd1); > fd2 = open("bar", O_RDONLY); > assert(fd2 != fd1); > and you would expect this assertion to fail on all architectures, yes? however my test only fails on hppa. Cheers, Ryan -- _________________________ Ryan Niebur ryanryan52@gmail.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature