RE: [LTP] Anyone running LTP on non-x86 processors?

[Mikael S. <mik...@ax...>]

>We're using busybox's ash, which seems to be able to
>handle most things.

Yes, we also run busybox ash in some products. I should 
switch to that on my test target.

>Right, for instance, it doesn't support sendfile, I think.
>That's an interesting issue.

Some shortcommings of tmpfs:

1. Does not support sendfile (but tmpfs in 2.5.x supports it). 
sendfile02 and sendfile03 fails because of this.
2. Does not check filename length. All tests for maximum name length fails (chdir04, chroot03, creat06, execve03, mkdir03, open08,
rename10, statfs02)
3. tmpfs doesn't obey S_ISGID (mkdir02, mknod03, mknod04)
4. tmfpfs hangs target for read01 and readv01. After my report
the maintainer has fixed this in 2.4.21 pre 2(and it works in
2.5)

>Hey, please do submit some patches!  Vasan and I are
>running into some of these issues, and we're carefully
>uploading patches for each one we can figure out.
>It'd be nice if we didn't have to duplicate your efforts.

Ok, I'll send some on Monday. Do you also run -O2?