syscall clock_nanosleep and posix_fadvise works wrongly.
These two bugs were reported by Fujitsu.
The patch was attached
Created attachment 364537 [details]
patch for ia-32el v7
The patch to fix
*** Bug 528595 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 528592 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Event posted on 12-09-2009 01:35pm JST by firstname.lastname@example.org
Following is from Fujitsu regarding the proposed patch:
> Intel reports that they have fixed the clock_nanosleep() and fadvise64()
syscall bugs. They created a new Bugzilla entry to track the patch:
We checked the patch attached at Bug #528590.
It fixes fadvise64() but does _not_ fix fadvise64_64().
We are afraid Intel forgot fadvise64_64().
Could you please verify it and reply to this comment?
This event sent from IssueTracker by email@example.com
Created attachment 377642 [details]
patch to fix fadvise64_64
The patch to fix fadvise64_64 was uploaded. Sorry for the inconvenience.
can you attach testcases for this two bugs so we can test fixes in house, please? From https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528595 it seems that one of the test cases (fadvise64_64()) might sit in IssueTracker.
Michal, I attached the fadvise reproducer to the bug 528595. I'm leaving the needinfo in, since we still need the test case for nanosleep.
Created attachment 386518 [details]
reproducer for nanosleep
This is a reproducer for nanosleep.
An advisory has been issued which should help the problem
described in this bug report. This report is therefore being
closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For more information
on therefore solution and/or where to find the updated files,
please follow the link below. You may reopen this bug report
if the solution does not work for you.