Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] selftests: pidfd: add tests for PIDFD_SELF_*

Shuah Khan
2024-10-17T19:37:08Z

On 10/17/24 11:38, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:37:00AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>> On 10/17/24 10:28 AM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>>> On Thu, Oct 17, 2024 at 10:17:54AM -0700, John Hubbard wrote:
>>>> On 10/17/24 5:06 AM, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> #ifndef __TOOLS_LINUX_PIDFD_H
>>>>> #define __TOOLS_LINUX_PIDFD_H
>>>>>
>>>>> /*
>>>>> * Some systems have issues with the linux/fcntl.h import in linux/pidfd.h, so
>>>>> * work around this by setting the header guard.
>>>>> */
>>>>> #define _LINUX_FCNTL_H
>>>>> #include "../../../include/uapi/linux/pidfd.h"
>>>>> #undef _LINUX_FCNTL_H
>>>>>
>>>>> #endif /* __TOOLS_LINUX_PIDFD_H */
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the test code needs only to update the pidfd.h file to #include
>>>>> <linux/pidfd.h> and add a simple $(TOOLS_INCLUDES) to the CFLAGS += line in
>>>>> the pidfd self tests Makefile and we should be all good.
>>>>

I like this solution. I should have read this message first before
handling the others.

>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That way we always import everything in this header correctly, we directly
>>>>> document this issue, we include the header as you would in userland and we
>>>>> should cover off all the issues?
>>>>
>>>> Very nice!
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> I saw from your other thread the idea was to take snapshots and to run scripts
>>> to compare etc. but I suppose putting this into the known-stub directory
>>
>> Actually, I'm not running scripts, because the only time things need to
>> change is when new selftests require a new include, or when something
>> changes that selftests depend on.
>>
>>> tools/include/linux rather than tools/include/uapi/linux would avoid a conflict
>>> here.
>>
>> This is the first time I've actually looked at tools/include/linux. That
>> sounds about right, though.
>>
>>>
>>> Or would you say the wrapper should regardless be in the uapi/linux directory?
>>>
>>
>> No, not if there is already a better location, as you pointed out.
>
> OK perfect, I have a patch series ready to go with this (and addressing
> Christian's comments).
>
> Shuah - if you are open to this approach then we should be good to go!

I am caught up with the discussion now. I am good with this change.

Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

thanks,
-- Shuah