From: Petr Vorel <pvorel@suse.cz>
To: ltp@lists.linux.it
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 3/5] syscalls: Don't use tst_syscall() unnecessarily
Date: Tue, 19 May 2020 14:56:18 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20200519125618.GA29373@dell5510> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAK8P3a2PgjYyijH=VoNGhs_xk1VvFN6ZNvNM-W4TopWY6jJNbA@mail.gmail.com>
Hi,
> > > - tst_clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &ts);
> > > + clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &ts);
> > I guess that this will reintroduce LTP compilation failures on older
> > glibc, which was the primary reason we used the tst_clock_gettime()
> > instead of clock_gettime().
> I see that clock_gettime was first added in glibc-2.1.3 back in 1999.
> Can that actually run LTP any more? If it can and this is considered
> important, I fear the tst_clock_gettime() call needs to be extended
> to call the clock_gettime()/clock_gettime64()/gettimeofday() syscalls,
> whichever is the first to work, and convert the formats from the
> native kernel format to the glibc format.
IMHO the older system we still test in Travis (but going to remove it soon) is
CentOS 6 (kernel 3.10, glibc 2.12, gcc 4.4.7). I suspect that it was needed this
system (e.g. system with old glibc and gcc; gcc required some fixes which
bothered me, but old glibc actually caught some bugs in fallback which we
wouldn't otherwise find). Or am I wrong?
We agreed (few LTP maintainers), that, at least for SUSE and Red Hat is ok to
drop support for distros 10+ years, because these systems are tested with some
older LTP release anyway.
> Arnd
Kind regards,
Petr
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-19 12:56 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-19 8:51 [LTP] [PATCH 0/5] syscalls: Remove incorrect usage of libc structures Viresh Kumar
2020-05-19 8:51 ` [LTP] [PATCH 1/5] tst_safe_clocks: Remove safe_clock_adjtime() Viresh Kumar
2020-05-19 8:51 ` [LTP] [PATCH 2/5] syscalls: settimeofday: Use gettimeofday() Viresh Kumar
2020-05-19 9:20 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-19 9:25 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-19 10:24 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-19 12:16 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-05-19 12:47 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-20 7:16 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-21 13:16 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-05-19 8:51 ` [LTP] [PATCH 3/5] syscalls: Don't use tst_syscall() unnecessarily Viresh Kumar
2020-05-19 9:22 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-19 9:28 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-19 12:23 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-05-19 12:41 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-19 12:56 ` Petr Vorel [this message]
2020-05-19 13:45 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-05-20 7:19 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-21 14:20 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-05-21 15:10 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-19 8:51 ` [LTP] [PATCH 4/5] syscalls: Don't pass struct timespec to tst_syscall() Viresh Kumar
2020-05-19 12:21 ` Cyril Hrubis
2020-05-20 7:31 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-20 8:47 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-20 9:05 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-20 9:35 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-20 9:39 ` Viresh Kumar
2020-05-20 9:52 ` Arnd Bergmann
2020-05-19 8:51 ` [LTP] [PATCH 5/5] syscalls: Don't pass struct timeval " Viresh Kumar
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=20200519125618.GA29373@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