[LTP] [PATCH] getrlimit/getrlimit03: Skip test if __NR_getrlimit not implemented

[Tiezhu Yang]

On 2025/7/8 下午3:17, Tiezhu Yang wrote:
> In the Linux kernel, LoongArch uses the generic syscall table which
> is defined in include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h, and also there is
> no __ARCH_WANT_SET_GET_RLIMIT in arch/loongarch/include/asm/unistd.h,
> so __NR_getrlimit is not implemented on LoongArch.
> 
> That is to say, getrlimit are superseded with prlimit64. There is no
> need to compare the return value and errno about the syscall numbers
> __NR_prlimit64 and __NR_getrlimit, just check this case and then skip
> the test.

...

> 
> Signed-off-by: Tiezhu Yang <yangtiezhu@loongson.cn>
> ---
>   testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrlimit/getrlimit03.c | 5 +++++
>   1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrlimit/getrlimit03.c b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrlimit/getrlimit03.c
> index 604082ccf..2d79057da 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrlimit/getrlimit03.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/getrlimit/getrlimit03.c
> @@ -162,6 +162,11 @@ static void run(unsigned int resource)
>   	errno = 0;
>   	ret_ul = getrlimit_ulong(resource, &rlim_ul);
>   	errno_ul = errno;
> +	if (errno_ul == ENOSYS) {
> +		tst_res(TCONF | TERRNO,
> +			"%s not implemented", __NR_getrlimit_ulong_str);

Self review:

I am not sure whether it should add the following code:

+               test.tcnt = 1;

to skip only once if __NR_getrlimit_ulong_str (maybe __NR_getrlimit
or __NR_ugetrlimit) not implemented.

> +		return;
> +	}
>   
>   	if (compare_retval(resource, ret_u64, errno_u64, ret_ul, errno_ul,
>   			   __NR_getrlimit_ulong_str) ||
> 

If yes, it is necessary to modify another place in this function,
something like this:

@@ -186,6 +187,7 @@ static void run(unsigned int resource)
         if (errno_l == ENOSYS) {
                 tst_res(TCONF | TERRNO,
                         "__NR_getrlimit(%d) not implemented", 
__NR_getrlimit);
+               test.tcnt = 1;
                 return;
         }

Please let me know your opinions, should I squash the above changes
into this patch or should I send a small patch series with two patches?

Thanks,
Tiezhu