From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
To: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Cc: open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC..." <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc: Wire up three syscalls
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:51:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54036090.1050104@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANq1E4SCnDjN5yetrgtaRNdvDr7xqGOm1BXz7dbGvX3mnsm-MA@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/31/2014 10:34 AM, David Herrmann wrote:
> The only arch-dependent code for memfd_test.c is the syscall invocation:
> memfd_create(const char *name, unsigned int flags);
> via glibc as:
> syscall(__NR_memfd_create, name, flags);
>
> Can you debug your test-run (maybe via simple printk() in mm/shmem.c
> memfd_create()) and see what's going wrong there?
>
Hi David,
I figured out the problem. I am on a 32-bit system and using u64 for flags in fcntl() is the cause of the problem. Will you accept a patch making the test work on 32-bit systems as below?
Thanks!
--
Pranith
From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:38:07 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] memfd_test: Make it work on 32-bit systems
This test currently fails on 32-bit systems since we use u64 type to pass the
flags to fcntl.
This commit changes this to use u32 type for flags to fcntl making it work on
32-bit systems.
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 32 +++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
index 3634c90..77e56ff 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
@@ -59,9 +59,9 @@ static void mfd_fail_new(const char *name, unsigned int flags)
}
}
-static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
+static __u32 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
{
- long r;
+ int r;
r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS);
if (r < 0) {
@@ -72,36 +72,36 @@ static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
return r;
}
-static void mfd_assert_has_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
+static void mfd_assert_has_seals(int fd, __u32 seals)
{
- __u64 s;
+ __u32 s;
s = mfd_assert_get_seals(fd);
if (s != seals) {
- printf("%llu != %llu = GET_SEALS(%d)\n",
- (unsigned long long)seals, (unsigned long long)s, fd);
+ printf("%lu != %lu = GET_SEALS(%d)\n",
+ (unsigned long)seals, (unsigned long)s, fd);
abort();
}
}
-static void mfd_assert_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
+static void mfd_assert_add_seals(int fd, __u32 seals)
{
- long r;
- __u64 s;
+ int r;
+ __u32 s;
s = mfd_assert_get_seals(fd);
r = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, seals);
if (r < 0) {
- printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %llu -> %llu) failed: %m\n",
- fd, (unsigned long long)s, (unsigned long long)seals);
+ printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %lu -> %lu) failed: %m\n",
+ fd, (unsigned long)s, (unsigned long)seals);
abort();
}
}
-static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
+static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u32 seals)
{
- long r;
- __u64 s;
+ int r;
+ __u32 s;
r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS);
if (r < 0)
@@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
r = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, seals);
if (r >= 0) {
- printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %llu -> %llu) didn't fail as expected\n",
- fd, (unsigned long long)s, (unsigned long long)seals);
+ printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %lu -> %lu) didn't fail as expected\n",
+ fd, (unsigned long)s, (unsigned long)seals);
abort();
}
}
--
2.1.0
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
To: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Cc: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@samba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@samba.org>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@skynet.be>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC..." <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc: Wire up three syscalls
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:51:12 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <54036090.1050104@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANq1E4SCnDjN5yetrgtaRNdvDr7xqGOm1BXz7dbGvX3mnsm-MA@mail.gmail.com>
On 08/31/2014 10:34 AM, David Herrmann wrote:
> The only arch-dependent code for memfd_test.c is the syscall invocation:
> memfd_create(const char *name, unsigned int flags);
> via glibc as:
> syscall(__NR_memfd_create, name, flags);
>
> Can you debug your test-run (maybe via simple printk() in mm/shmem.c
> memfd_create()) and see what's going wrong there?
>
Hi David,
I figured out the problem. I am on a 32-bit system and using u64 for flags in fcntl() is the cause of the problem. Will you accept a patch making the test work on 32-bit systems as below?
Thanks!
--
Pranith
From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:38:07 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] memfd_test: Make it work on 32-bit systems
This test currently fails on 32-bit systems since we use u64 type to pass the
flags to fcntl.
This commit changes this to use u32 type for flags to fcntl making it work on
32-bit systems.
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 32 +++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
index 3634c90..77e56ff 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
@@ -59,9 +59,9 @@ static void mfd_fail_new(const char *name, unsigned int flags)
}
}
-static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
+static __u32 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
{
- long r;
+ int r;
r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS);
if (r < 0) {
@@ -72,36 +72,36 @@ static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
return r;
}
-static void mfd_assert_has_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
+static void mfd_assert_has_seals(int fd, __u32 seals)
{
- __u64 s;
+ __u32 s;
s = mfd_assert_get_seals(fd);
if (s != seals) {
- printf("%llu != %llu = GET_SEALS(%d)\n",
- (unsigned long long)seals, (unsigned long long)s, fd);
+ printf("%lu != %lu = GET_SEALS(%d)\n",
+ (unsigned long)seals, (unsigned long)s, fd);
abort();
}
}
-static void mfd_assert_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
+static void mfd_assert_add_seals(int fd, __u32 seals)
{
- long r;
- __u64 s;
+ int r;
+ __u32 s;
s = mfd_assert_get_seals(fd);
r = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, seals);
if (r < 0) {
- printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %llu -> %llu) failed: %m\n",
- fd, (unsigned long long)s, (unsigned long long)seals);
+ printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %lu -> %lu) failed: %m\n",
+ fd, (unsigned long)s, (unsigned long)seals);
abort();
}
}
-static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
+static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u32 seals)
{
- long r;
- __u64 s;
+ int r;
+ __u32 s;
r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS);
if (r < 0)
@@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
r = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, seals);
if (r >= 0) {
- printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %llu -> %llu) didn't fail as expected\n",
- fd, (unsigned long long)s, (unsigned long long)seals);
+ printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %lu -> %lu) didn't fail as expected\n",
+ fd, (unsigned long)s, (unsigned long)seals);
abort();
}
}
--
2.1.0
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-08-31 17:51 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-08-30 3:36 [RFC PATCH] powerpc: Wire up three syscalls Pranith Kumar
2014-08-31 8:53 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-08-31 8:53 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-08-31 12:52 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-31 12:52 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-08-31 14:14 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-08-31 14:14 ` Geert Uytterhoeven
2014-08-31 14:34 ` David Herrmann
2014-08-31 14:34 ` David Herrmann
2014-08-31 17:51 ` Pranith Kumar [this message]
2014-08-31 17:51 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-09-01 11:33 ` David Herrmann
2014-09-01 11:33 ` David Herrmann
2014-09-01 15:21 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-09-01 15:21 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-09-01 15:31 ` David Herrmann
2014-09-01 15:31 ` David Herrmann
2014-09-01 17:16 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-09-01 17:16 ` Pranith Kumar
2014-09-01 17:28 ` David Herrmann
2014-09-01 17:28 ` David Herrmann
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=54036090.1050104@gmail.com \
--to=bobby.prani@gmail.com \
--cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
--cc=anton@samba.org \
--cc=dh.herrmann@gmail.com \
--cc=fabf@skynet.be \
--cc=geert@linux-m68k.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.