From 1eed3df165bc1cafb9b94666d9e3292ae46692d1 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: William Cohen Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:50:22 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] Use a value for bad syscall that works better on 32-bit ARM On 32-bit ARM the use of -1 for the syscall number for the bad syscall in the utrace_syscall_args test will result in a kernel oops on some kernels and the use other negative numbers will result in illegal instruction exceptions. Changing the bad syscall to use a large positive number for the bad syscall to allow this test to work better on 32-bit arm. or an illegal instruction fault. --- testsuite/systemtap.base/utrace_syscall_args.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/testsuite/systemtap.base/utrace_syscall_args.c b/testsuite/systemtap.base/utrace_syscall_args.c index 2d3da8381..9bb669389 100644 --- a/testsuite/systemtap.base/utrace_syscall_args.c +++ b/testsuite/systemtap.base/utrace_syscall_args.c @@ -47,7 +47,7 @@ int main() (unsigned long)0xe38e38e3); #endif #if (__LONG_MAX__ > __INT_MAX__) - rc = syscall ((unsigned long)-1, + rc = syscall ((unsigned long)0xffff, (unsigned long)0x1c71c71c71c71c71, (unsigned long)0x0f0f0f0f0f0f0f0f, (unsigned long)0xdb6db6db6db6db6d, @@ -55,7 +55,7 @@ int main() (unsigned long)0xad6b5ad6b5ad6b5a, (unsigned long)0xdef7ddef7ddef7dd); #else - rc = syscall ((unsigned long)-1, + rc = syscall ((unsigned long)0xffff, (unsigned long)0x1c71c71c, (unsigned long)0x0f0f0f0f, (unsigned long)0xdb6db6db, -- 2.43.5