[LTP] [PATCH 1/1] ioctl_pidfd06: Update kernel version

[Jan Stancek]

On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 9:13 AM Li Wang <li.wang@linux.dev> wrote:
>
> > > > --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_pidfd06.c
> > > > +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/ioctl/ioctl_pidfd06.c
> > > > @@ -54,7 +54,7 @@ static void setup(void)
> > > >   if (!ioctl_pidfd_info_exit_supported())
> > > >           tst_brk(TCONF, "PIDFD_INFO_EXIT is not supported by ioctl()");
> >
> > > > - if (tst_kvercmp(7, 0, 0) >= 0)
> > > > + if (tst_kvercmp(6, 18, 14) >= 0)
> >
> > > What will happen if this test is run on kernel range: v6.19.0 ~ v6.19.9?
> >
> > FYI I haven't tested that, but it should fail on 6.18.0..v6.18.13 and on
> > v6.19.0..v6.19.9 due missing backport.
> >
> > I'd assume that's correct, because on stable/LTS we should IMHO be more strict
> > to ensure it behaves as expected. WDYT?
>
> Hmm, maybe that's acceptable. Or just:
>
>   if ((tst_kvercmp(6, 18, 14) == 0 ||
>        tst_kvercmp(6, 19, 10) == 0) ||
>        tst_kvercmp(7, 0, 0) >= 0)
>
> And it'd be great to have Jan's comments, he is an expert in
> the kernel maintenance area:).

ehm, not sure about that :-).

This is change in error code, we didn't treat previous value as error for older
releases, so why do that now? I don't see it covered in man pages (yet),
so why be strict?

I think the patch should either use more specific version ranges or
allow both errnos on versions <= 7.0.0.