From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2019 16:00:06 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/ustat: Move the syscall to lapi In-Reply-To: <87pnrk2rw6.fsf@rpws.prws.suse.cz> References: <20190221112201.18324-1-chrubis@suse.cz> <87r2c12udf.fsf@rpws.prws.suse.cz> <20190221143021.GC17813@rei.lan> <87pnrk2rw6.fsf@rpws.prws.suse.cz> Message-ID: <20190222150006.GA23713@rei> 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... > > Possibly we could create a config option which forcibly sets (almost) > all the HAVE_* macros to zero. This will probably result in a lot of > tests being skipped as well, but it might be good enough. I don't think that this will actully get past linking, I suppose we would end up with two confilicting syscall wrappers in most of the cases. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz