From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2019 15:30:22 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/ustat: Move the syscall to lapi In-Reply-To: <87r2c12udf.fsf@rpws.prws.suse.cz> References: <20190221112201.18324-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <87r2c12udf.fsf@rpws.prws.suse.cz> Message-ID: <20190221143021.GC17813@rei.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > > diff --git a/include/lapi/ustat.h b/include/lapi/ustat.h > > index 12c073582..6365b2e92 100644 > > --- a/include/lapi/ustat.h > > +++ b/include/lapi/ustat.h > > @@ -10,12 +10,19 @@ > > #ifdef HAVE_SYS_USTAT_H > > # include > > Just a thought, but this is potentially a problem if lib C implementes > ustat in user land, but the system call still exists. Which I think is > more likely with an obsolete system call. Good point. So it all depends on what we want to focus on, if we are after kernel, we should call the syscall directly, if we look at system functionality we should go after the libc one by default. I guess that ideally we should test both, not sure how to achiveve that reasonably easily... -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz