Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:23:12 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:23:11 -0400 Received: from perninha.conectiva.com.br ([200.250.58.156]:8463 "HELO perninha.conectiva.com.br") by vger.kernel.org with SMTP id ; Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:23:10 -0400 Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 18:31:43 -0300 (BRT) From: Marcelo Tosatti X-X-Sender: marcelo@freak.distro.conectiva To: Paul Larson Cc: lkml Subject: Re: 2.4.19-rc1 sending SIGALRM to exec'd process In-Reply-To: <1026250476.32159.11.camel@plars.austin.ibm.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1253 Lines: 31 On 9 Jul 2002, Paul Larson wrote: > On Tue, 2002-07-09 at 11:33, Paul Larson wrote: > > 2.4.19-rc1 seems to be having trouble sending a SIGALRM process that > > have been exec'd on one of my test boxes. From the Linux Test Project, > > alarm04 test: > > > > sig_rev 1 FAIL : alarm() fails to send SIGALRM to execed > > process > > > > Also, the gettimeofday02 test fails when execed from the test driver, > > but not when you run it alone. This test also sends a SIGALRM to know > > when it's done. > Nevermind, I think this can safely be ignored. I can reliably reproduce > it on this one machine, but not on anything else and I suspect that > there may be a preexisting condition with the machine that is having > problems. I borrowed it in a pinch to get the testing done while I was > rebuilding my regular test box. My regular test box is rebuilt now, so > I'll rerun on that one. Ho hum, OK. One more thing: Does 2.4.18 fails the test on _that_ box ? - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/