----- Original Message -----
> From: "Li Wang" <liw...@redhat.com>
> To: "Jan Stancek" <jstan...@redhat.com>
> Cc: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> Sent: Monday, 27 July, 2015 7:54:26 AM
> Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/sysfs: replace the TWARN to TCONF
>
> Hi Jan,
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Li Wang" <liw...@redhat.com>
> > > To: ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
> > > Sent: Friday, 24 July, 2015 9:22:00 AM
> > > Subject: [LTP] [PATCH] syscalls/sysfs: replace the TWARN to TCONF
> > >
> > > I run some of these cases on aarch64 today and get a series waring,
> > > that's
> > > because
> > > sysfs syscall is not implemented on aarch64. So, maybe TCONF is better
> > > than
> > > TWARN
> > > in the testcase.
> >
> > Are you sure it's not supported? Or is it just disabled in your kernel
> > config?
> > I'm looking at Kconfig and nothing suggests you can't use it on aarch64:
>
> Hmm, to be precise, it has supported sysfs_syscall but not define
> '__NR_sysfs' on aarch64.
Hi,
Same question:
http://linux-arm-kernel.infradead.narkive.com/n9PCFfpR/arm64-dose-arm64-support-the-sysfs-system-call
So it looks like you can enable CONFIG_SYSFS_SYSCALL, but still you won't
be able to use it (for 64bit on 64bit), since it doesn't appear to be in
syscall table.
>
> My system config:
> # grep -i sysfs_syscall /boot/config-4.1.0-0.12.el7.aarch64
> CONFIG_SYSFS_SYSCALL=y
> # grep -i EXPERT /boot/config-4.1.0-0.12.el7.aarch64
> CONFIG_EXPERT is not set
>
> (1)---->
> If I change the code as:
>
> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sysfs/sysfs01.c
> b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sysfs/sysfs01.c
> index 11ebe43..770c9c9 100644
> --- a/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sysfs/sysfs01.c
> +++ b/testcases/kernel/syscalls/sysfs/sysfs01.c
> @@ -67,6 +67,7 @@
>
> ******************************************************************************/
>
> #include "test.h"
> +#include "linux_syscall_numbers.h"
> #include <errno.h>
> #include <unistd.h>
> #include <syscall.h>
> @@ -85,14 +86,12 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
>
> setup();
>
> -#ifdef __NR_sysfs
> -
> for (lc = 0; TEST_LOOPING(lc); lc++) {
>
> tst_count = 0;
>
> /* option 1, buf holds fs name */
> - TEST(syscall(__NR_sysfs, 1, "proc"));
> + TEST(ltp_syscall(__NR_sysfs, 1, "proc"));
>
> /* check return code */
> if (TEST_RETURN == -1) {
> @@ -102,10 +101,6 @@ int main(int ac, char **av)
> tst_resm(TPASS, "sysfs(2) Passed for " "option 1");
> }
> } /*End of TEST_LOOPING */
> -#else
> - tst_resm(TWARN,
> - "This test can only run on kernels that support the sysfs
> system call");
> -#endif
>
> /*Clean up and exit */
> cleanup();
>
>
> It's show:
>
> # ./sysfs01
> sysfs01 1 TCONF : sysfs01.c:94: syscall __NR_sysfs not supported on
> your arch
> sysfs01 2 TCONF : sysfs01.c:94: Remaining cases not appropriate for
> configuration
I think this is correct way to go.
>
>
>
> (2)---->
> then I add the macro to "linux_syscall_numbers.h" by manual:
linux_syscall_numbers.h is generated from *.in files in the same directory.
>
> # grep -e __aarch64 -e __NR_sysfs linux_syscall_numbers.h -A 2 -B 2
>
> #ifdef __aarch64__
> ...
> # ifndef __NR_sysfs
> # define __NR_sysfs 135
> # endif
This appears to be taken from unistd32.h.
>
>
> It's failed as:
>
> # ./sysfs01
> sysfs01 1 TFAIL : sysfs01.c:99: sysfs(2) Failed for option 1 and set
> errno to 22
>
Yeah, I think that's because the number you picked is used for
__NR_rt_sigprocmask:
$ grep -e __aarch64 -e __NR_rt_sigproc linux_syscall_numbers.h
#ifdef __aarch64__
# ifndef __NR_rt_sigprocmask
# define __NR_rt_sigprocmask 135
Regards,
Jan
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list
