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