[LTP] [PATCH] clone10: add support archs
Petr Vorel
pvorel@suse.cz
Thu Jan 22 14:06:34 CET 2026
> Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz> wrote:
> > > Acked-by: Jan Stancek <jstancek@redhat.com>
> > LGTM. Indeed only these 3 archs don't TCONF.
> > Acked-by: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
> > Out of curiosity, where is the support defined in kernel?
> > "if (clone_flags & CLONE_SETTLS)" is in many archs:
> Not based on this, the clone10.c test was written and gets tested
> only on the known archs (x86_64, s390x, aarch64) by now.
> And in case that other archs (not tested) have different behavior like i386,
> so we are limited to the know/tested archs.
> If we can get another arch to verified we can add it to the
> .supported_archs as well.
> $ cat -n ltp/include/lapi/tls.h
> ...
> 53 static inline void init_tls(void)
> 54 {
> 55 #if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__s390x__)
> 56 tls_ptr = allocate_tls_area();
> 57 #else
> ...
include/lapi/tls.h
static inline void init_tls(void)
{
#if defined(__x86_64__) || defined(__aarch64__) || defined(__s390x__)
tls_ptr = allocate_tls_area();
#else
tst_brk(TCONF, "Unsupported architecture for TLS");
#endif
I see. First IMHO the message in include/lapi/tls.h is pretty misleading. It
does not look to me as a test limitation, but as a missing arch support in
kernel. IMHO the message should have been something like:
tst_brk(TCONF, "Test not supported only architecture");
(i.e. to mention "test")
Also having arch listed in the test and also in tls.h is redundant.
IMHO it should be only on a single place.
Kind regards,
Petr
More information about the ltp
mailing list