[LTP] [PATCH v4 1/5] syscalls/quotactl01: Add Q_GETNEXTQUOTA test

[Yang Xu]

on 2019/11/20 23:16, Petr Vorel wrote:

> Hi Jan, Cyril, Xu,
>
>>> +#ifdef HAVE_STRUCT_IF_NEXTDQBLK
>>> +# include <linux/quota.h>
>>> +#else
>>> +# ifdef HAVE_LINUX_TYPES_H
>>> +# include <linux/types.h>
>> @Jan, @Cyril: Do we want to generally avoid loading <linux/types.h> if not really needed?
>> __u64 can be uint64_t etc (as it's also visible in struct dqblk in <sys/quota.h>
>> in various libc headers).
>> We used this approach for /usr/include/linux/bpf.h and for fanotify fixes for
>> musl (testcases/kernel/syscalls/fanotify/fanotify.h).
>> So unless you're against this approach here I'll change it before merge
>> (and add this info to next version of library API writing guidelines patch
>> https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1166786/).
> + general question: do we want always test against kernel headers or libc
> headers? Libc is often outdated, so mostly it'd be our fallback to be tested.
> Ideally both kernel and libc header should be tested, but that's not easily
> achievable.

IMHO, We often test libc and it usually includes kernel headers ie. 
<sys/quota.h> <sys/prctl.h>. I perfet to check one except that glibc and 
kernel they have themselves implementation . If the struct or variable 
is not defined, we can define it in ltp lapi headers. Then we can avoid 
build error and increase coverage(because kernel may implement it).   

>
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20191121/6c82d301/attachment.htm>