From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cui Bixuan Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:59:27 +0800 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] max_map_count: fix error by using runtime check In-Reply-To: <1242994016.13404335.1458728559657.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> References: <56DD6138.9060109@huawei.com> <20160322102943.GA10195@rei.suse.cz> <56F14D59.1040701@huawei.com> <20160322142842.GE10905@rei.suse.cz> <56F259A7.1080908@huawei.com> <1242994016.13404335.1458728559657.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> Message-ID: <56F2851F.8080103@gmail.com> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it 在 2016/3/23 18:22, Jan Stancek 写道: >> - if (!strcmp(buf, "[vsyscall]")) >> - return true; >> -#elif defined(__ia64__) >> - /* On ia64, the vdso is not a proper mapping */ >> - if (!strcmp(buf, "[vdso]")) >> - return true; >> -#elif defined(__arm__) >> - /* Older arm kernels didn't label their vdso maps */ >> - if (!strncmp(line, "ffff0000-ffff1000", 17)) >> - return true; >> -#endif >> + if (strstr(un.machine, "x86") != NULL) > > What if uname contains i386? Yes, you are right, I have a mistake. > > Can we relax the pass condition to allow map_count to be > within some tolerance? Then we wouldn't have to worry so much about > all arch specifics. Does it influence the case if we relax the pass condition? I think we shuold think about it. Thanks Cui Bixuan > > >> return false; >> } >> -- >> 1.8.3.4 >> >> -- >> Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp >> >