Re: LSB.os/readv_L 22
hi Thorsten
I agree , after reviewing the specs and the tests,
you are correct for readv_L:22, and 23, these should be
classified as TSDs (test suite deficiencies)
regards
Andrew
On Feb 1, 1:54pm in "Re: LSB.os/readv_L 2", Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 01, Thorsten Kukuk wrote:
>
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > >From readv_L 22 test:
> >
> > readv(5, iov, 0) did not behave as expected
> > RETURN VALUES: expected: -1, observed: 0
> > ERRNO VALUES: expected: 22 (EINVAL), observed: 0 (NO ERROR)
> >
> > As far as I understand POSIX, readv with count=0 may fail, but must
> > not. So the test is wrong.
> > I'm right or do we here misread POSIX?
>
> The same for readv_L 23: iovcnt may fail if it is greater than IOV_MAX,
> but must not. I think we should waive both tests if our interpretation
> is correct.
>
> Thorsten
>
> --
> Thorsten Kukuk http://www.suse.de/~kukuk/ kukuk@suse.de
> SuSE GmbH Deutschherrenstr. 15-19 D-90429 Nuernberg
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Key fingerprint = A368 676B 5E1B 3E46 CFCE 2D97 F8FD 4E23 56C6 FB4B
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to lsb-test-request@lists.linuxbase.org
> with subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Email listmaster@lists.linuxbase.org
>-- End of excerpt from Thorsten Kukuk
Reply to: