From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] tst_device: use raw syscall in the tst_device.h
Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2020 15:28:02 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200109142802.GA15780@dell5510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20200109131056.GC22952@rei.lan>
Hi,
> > > But shouldn't we define the _GNU_SOURCE for syscall()? Otherwise,
> > > the _XOPEN_SOURCE 600 definitions will take effect and makes the compiler
> > > print new errors[1].
> > Correct, syscall() requires _GNU_SOURCE and <unistd.h>.
> Not really, it's guarded by _USE_MISC which is enabled by default and
> disabled by _XOPEN_SOURCE.
Yep, looking into features.h __USE_MISC is defined by _DEFAULT_SOURCE,
which is enabled if nothing or only _GNU_SOURCE is defined.
> Looks like the manual page is outdated at least.
Yes, that's what I checked this time (I usually look into sources).
> > + Not sure if <sys/syscall.h> should be used (as it's in your patch or
> > lapi/syscalls.h.
> Well, given that syncfs is old enough (2.6.39) either should work.
> > > Here I feel a little confused, or do we need to delete the _XOPEN_SOURCE
> > > definition directly for the test posix_fadvise01.c?
> > > [1]:
> > > gcc -Werror=implicit-function-declaration -g -O2 -fno-strict-aliasing -pipe
> > > -Wall -W -Wold-style-definition
> > > -I/root/ltp2/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fadvise
> > > -I/root/ltp2/testcases/kernel/syscalls/fadvise/../utils
> > > -I../../../../include -I../../../../include -I../../../../include/old/
> > > -L../../../../lib posix_fadvise01.c -lltp -o posix_fadvise01
> > > In file included from ../../../../include/tst_test.h:22,
> > > from posix_fadvise01.c:31:
> > > ../../../../include/tst_device.h: In function ???tst_dev_sync???:
> > > ../../../../include/tst_device.h:82:9: error: implicit declaration of
> > > function ???syscall???; did you mean ???strcoll????
> > > [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
> > > return syscall(__NR_syncfs, fd);
> > > ^~~~~~~
> > > strcoll
> > + Our syscall numbers in include/lapi/syscalls/ are outdated (syncfs is not at
> > least in include/lapi/syscalls/sparc{64,}.in and
> > include/lapi/syscalls/x86_64.in).
> The lapi/syscall.h includes sys/syscall.h so it's probably not a
> problem, since there are no distribution that are missing syncfs in the
> system headers. Note that we are only adding fallback definitions there
> and if present the system values take precedence.
Good. Sorry for wrong report (haven't notice <sys/syscall.h> inclusion).
Kind regards,
Petr
prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-01-09 14:28 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-01-09 7:15 [LTP] [PATCH] tst_device: use raw syscall in the tst_device.h Li Wang
2020-01-09 7:45 ` Petr Vorel
2020-01-09 8:02 ` Li Wang
2020-01-09 8:21 ` Petr Vorel
2020-01-09 9:52 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-01-09 9:59 ` Petr Vorel
2020-01-09 12:41 ` Li Wang
2020-01-09 12:49 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-01-09 12:56 ` Li Wang
2020-01-09 12:56 ` Petr Vorel
2020-01-09 13:10 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-01-09 14:28 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
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=20200109142802.GA15780@dell5510 \
--to=pvorel@suse.cz \
--cc=ltp@lists.linux.it \
/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 a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox