Nicholas Piggin writes:
> The basic TM vs syscall test code hard codes an sc instruction for the
> system call, which fails to cover scv even when the userspace libc has
> support for it.
>
> Duplicate the tests with hard coded scv variants so both are tested
> when possible.
>
> Signed-off-by:
Nicholas Piggin writes:
> Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of September 2, 2021 3:15 am:
>> Le 01/09/2021 à 18:54, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
>>> The basic TM vs syscall test code hard codes an sc instruction for the
>>> system call, which fails to cover scv even when the userspace libc
Excerpts from Christophe Leroy's message of September 2, 2021 3:15 am:
>
>
> Le 01/09/2021 à 18:54, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
>> The basic TM vs syscall test code hard codes an sc instruction for the
>> system call, which fails to cover scv even when the userspace libc has
>> support for it.
>>
Le 01/09/2021 à 18:54, Nicholas Piggin a écrit :
The basic TM vs syscall test code hard codes an sc instruction for the
system call, which fails to cover scv even when the userspace libc has
support for it.
Duplicate the tests with hard coded scv variants so both are tested
when possible.
The basic TM vs syscall test code hard codes an sc instruction for the
system call, which fails to cover scv even when the userspace libc has
support for it.
Duplicate the tests with hard coded scv variants so both are tested
when possible.
Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin
---
