From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 13 May 2020 14:31:43 +0800
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v2 2/2] syscalls/pidfd_open*.c: Drop .min_kver flag
In-Reply-To: <20200513061343.mjhmciatmx4sw2ub@vireshk-i7>
References: <20200513012626.1571-1-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20200513012626.1571-2-yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20200513055533.ipmghf2oacc22mzy@vireshk-i7>
 <5EBB8DAA.5080509@cn.fujitsu.com>
 <20200513061343.mjhmciatmx4sw2ub@vireshk-i7>
Message-ID: <5EBB944F.5010303@cn.fujitsu.com>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

? 2020/5/13 14:13, Viresh Kumar ??:
> On 13-05-20, 14:03, Xiao Yang wrote:
>> Could you tell which issue happen? Thanks a lot.
>> The other two don't need the extra check because the implementation of
>> pidfd_open() can do it well.  For 3rd test, I want to check the support of
>> pidfs_open() before doing fork().
>
> What I meant was that the solution needs to be consistent across
Hi Viresh,

Current change can do correct check for pidfd_open[1-3] so don't need to 
add redundant check.

> tests. For example, with the current change the run() function will
> run for all tests in pidfd_open02.c and print the message that syscall
> isn't supported, while it would be better to run it only once in setup
> and get done with it. i.e. 1 message instead of 3 similar ones.
>

Are you sure?

Triggering first tst_brk(TCONF, ...) will break the whole test instead 
of a subtest.

Thanks,
Xiao Yang