[LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/ustat: Move the syscall to lapi

Richard Palethorpe rpalethorpe@suse.de
Fri Feb 22 08:39:53 CET 2019


Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> writes:

> Hi!
>> > diff --git a/include/lapi/ustat.h b/include/lapi/ustat.h
>> > index 12c073582..6365b2e92 100644
>> > --- a/include/lapi/ustat.h
>> > +++ b/include/lapi/ustat.h
>> > @@ -10,12 +10,19 @@
>> >  #ifdef HAVE_SYS_USTAT_H
>> >  # include <sys/ustat.h>
>> Just a thought, but this is potentially a problem if lib C implementes
>> ustat in user land, but the system call still exists. Which I think is
>> more likely with an obsolete system call.
> Good point. So it all depends on what we want to focus on, if we are
> after kernel, we should call the syscall directly, if we look at system
> functionality we should go after the libc one by default.
> I guess that ideally we should test both, not sure how to achiveve that
> reasonably easily...

Possibly we could create a config option which forcibly sets (almost)
all the HAVE_* macros to zero. This will probably result in a lot of
tests being skipped as well, but it might be good enough.

Thank you,

More information about the ltp mailing list