Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 22 Dec 2014 17:54:47 -0500 | From | David Drysdale <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH selftest fails!] m68k: Wire up execveat |
| |
[Re-send from a different email address because I apparently can't send plaintext from gMail on my phone.]
On 21 Dec 2014 09:37, "Andreas Schwab" <schwab@linux-m68k.org> wrote: > > Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org> writes: > > > Check success of execveat(5, > 'xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx...yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy', 0)... [FAIL] (child 792 > exited with 126 not 127) > > POSIX says > (http://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9699919799/utilities/V3_chap02.html#tag_18_08_02): > > If a command is not found, the exit status shall be 127. If the > command name is found, but it is not an executable utility, the exit > status shall be 126. > > Andreas. >
That sounds like a bit of a grey area -- is ENAMETOOLONG nearer to ENOENT or EACCES? Maybe it's best to make the test allow either (given that it's not a test of shell behaviour).
I can update the test to do that, but it probably won't be until the new year I'm afraid.
David
| |