Path: utzoo!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!execu!sequoia!rpp386!jfh
From: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.admin
Subject: Re: SVVS requires a panic?  Was: Re: CRASH your TANDEM :
Message-ID: <19109@rpp386.cactus.org>
Date: 17 Mar 91 19:40:34 GMT
References: <6685@auspex.auspex.com>
Reply-To: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org (John F Haugh II)
Organization: Lone Star Cafe and BBS Service
Lines: 22
X-Clever-Slogan: Recycle or Die.

In article <6685@auspex.auspex.com> guy@auspex.auspex.com (Guy Harris) writes:
>That's an interesting claim, but I'm rather skeptical of it.  AT&T has
>done some bogus things in the SVVS (e.g., requiring that "read()", as I
>remember, actually bump the system time returned by "times()"; this
>shafted Apollo, because the Domain/OS implementation of "read()" was all
>in user mode, so it bumped the user time but not the system time), but
>requiring that the system *panic* wasn't one of them, at least not in
>the version of the SVVS I've seen.

I don't know about "panic", but I do recall that IBM flunked certain
parts of the SVVS because it has a virtually unlimited process table
(128K entries).  There is apparently a test which forks a whole bunch
and expects to get EAGAIN or some such back and never does.

So, I can imagine that there are certain tests which are required to
"fail", for various values of "fail".  [ And "panic" may or may not be
part of that set ... ]
-- 
John F. Haugh II        | Distribution to  | UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh
Ma Bell: (512) 832-8832 | GEnie PROHIBITED :-) |  Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org
"I've never written a device driver, but I have written a device driver manual"
                -- Robert Hartman, IDE Corp.