Kernel 2.6.0test2 LSB test results (w/o attachments)
Wes Hofmann <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.linux.lsb.discuss |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
SUMMARY
Here are the results of LSB test suite run on the latest 2.6 kernel
(2.6.0test2):
| TOTALS Succeeded Warnings Unresolved Unsupported NotInUse|
Section | Expect Actual Failed FIP Uninitiated Untested |
____________|_________________________________________________________________|
| |
ANSI.os F | 1244 1244 1093 0 12 0 19 0 0 4 116 |
ANSI.os M | 1244 1244 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1158 |
POSIX.os F | 1600 1600 1309 3 5 2 23 0 72 7 179 |
POSIX.os M | 1600 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1600 |
LI18NUX2K.L1| 1152 1021 1012 2 1 2 0 0 0 4 0 |
LSB.fhs | 251 251 194 1 0 10 0 0 17 6 23 |
LSB.os F | 785 785 683 0 2 1 4 0 24 15 56 |
LSB.os M | 785 785 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 785 |
LSB.usersgroups| 94 94 84 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 6
|
TOTAL | 8755 8624 4461 6 23 15 46 0 113 37 3923 |
____________|_________________________________________________________________|
Which compare favorably with the results for kernel 2.5.69:
| TOTALS Succeeded Warnings Unresolved Unsupported NotInUse|
Section | Expect Actual Failed FIP Uninitiated Untested |
____________|_________________________________________________________________|
| |
ANSI.os F | 1244 1244 1086 0 12 0 26 0 0 4 116 |
ANSI.os M | 1244 1244 81 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 1158 |
POSIX.os F | 1600 1600 1300 11 5 2 24 0 72 7 179 |
POSIX.os M | 1600 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1600 |
LI18NUX2K.L1| 1152 1021 1011 3 1 2 0 0 0 4 0 |
LSB.fhs | 251 251 194 1 0 10 0 0 17 6 23 |
LSB.os F | 785 785 666 0 2 1 3 18 24 15 56 |
LSB.os M | 785 785 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 785 |
LSB.usersgroups| 94 94 82 0 3 0 2 0 0 1 6
|
TOTAL | 8755 8624 4420 15 23 15 60 18 113 37 3923 |
____________|_________________________________________________________________|
But is still not up-to-par with the results from 2.4.20:
| TOTALS Succeeded Warnings Unresolved Unsupported NotInUse|
Section | Expect Actual Failed FIP Uninitiated Untested |
____________|_________________________________________________________________|
| |
ANSI.os F | 1244 1244 1112 0 12 0 0 0 0 4 116 |
ANSI.os M | 1244 1244 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1158 |
POSIX.os F | 1600 1600 1333 1 5 2 1 0 72 7 179 |
POSIX.os M | 1600 1600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1600 |
LI18NUX2K.L1| 1152 1021 1012 2 1 2 0 0 0 4 0 |
LSB.fhs | 251 251 194 1 0 10 0 0 17 6 23 |
LSB.os F | 785 785 685 1 2 1 1 0 24 15 56 |
LSB.os M | 785 785 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 785 |
LSB.usersgroups| 94 94 84 0 3 0 0 0 0 1 6
|
TOTAL | 8755 8624 4506 5 23 15 2 0 113 37 3923 |
____________|_________________________________________________________________|
OBSERVATIONS
* Kernel 2.6.0test2 is getting better. There was only one additional failure
(/tset/POSIX.os/procprim/alarm/T.alarm 5), but 44 additional unresolved
tests; otherwise the results are identical. The additional unresolved tests
appear to be mostly related to loopback filesystem issues, though I've thus
far been unable to analyze them much more deeply than that.
* I tried starting a discussion regarding the alarm() failure on the Linux
Kernel Mailing List. The first portion of the thread, including the test
cases I wrote, etc, can be viewed here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=988b.1TH.17%40gated-at.bofh.it&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D2.5%2Bkernel%2Bregression%2Bin%2Balarm()%2Bsyscall%2Bbehaviour%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D988b.1TH.17%2540gated-at.bofh.it%26rnum%3D1
The thread continues here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=20030715015303.GA4845%40kvasir.austin.ibm.com.lucky.linux.kernel&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D2.5%2Bkernel%2Bregression%2Bin%2Balarm()%2Bsyscall%2Bbehaviour%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26selm%3D20030715015303.GA4845%2540kvasir.austin.ibm.com.lucky.linux.kernel%26rnum%3D4
Basically, George Anzinger believes the failures to be the fault of libc and
not the kernel, though the failures obviously did not occur in the 2.4 series
of kernels
I'd be interested in hearing any ideas or feedback about these failures (loopback and alarm(), specifically).
Paul "Wes" Hofmann
IBM Linux Technology Center
[email protected]
PS: Another email should be available shortly with related attachments