Skip to content

Address multiple CI failures #2642

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 8 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

asomers
Copy link
Member

@asomers asomers commented Jun 14, 2025

  • Fix the test_fcntl::test_posix_fallocate::success test with recent ZFS
  • Remove the PartialEq and Eq implementations from SigHandler
  • Clippy cleanup: mismatched_lifetime_syntaxes
  • Fix a rustdoc warning on the latest nightly
  • Suppress Clippy::doc_overindented_list_items

See individual commit messages for details

Checklist:

  • I have read CONTRIBUTING.md
  • I have written necessary tests and rustdoc comments
  • A change log has been added if this PR modifies nix's API

asomers added 2 commits June 14, 2025 12:18
POSIX 1003.1-2024 Issue 8 changed the error code for this operation, and
recent ZFS versions have followed suit.  So the test should accept
either the old error code (EINVAL) or the new one (ENOTSUP).

https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/posix_fallocate.html
@asomers asomers force-pushed the zfs-posix-fallocate branch from 9a5f408 to ea9eef8 Compare June 14, 2025 18:40
asomers added 2 commits June 14, 2025 13:26
Because it never worked reliably anyway.  See
https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/core/ptr/fn.fn_addr_eq.html for more
info.

Alternatively, we could only remove `Eq` and leave `PartialEq`.  We
would be able to guarantee equality or inequality in most cases, but
would be unable to prove that different handler functions are actually
different.  I think users would find that confusing.

Reported by:	Clippy (unpredictable_function_pointer_comparisons)
@asomers asomers changed the title Fix the test_fcntl::test_posix_fallocate::success test with recent ZFS Address multiple CI failures Jun 14, 2025
@asomers asomers requested a review from SteveLauC June 14, 2025 20:04
@SteveLauC
Copy link
Member

@psumbera Could you please take a look at the Solaris CI?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants