[PATCH] tst-process_madvise: Check process_madvise-syscall support.
Florian Weimer
fweimer@redhat.com
Thu Aug 11 08:37:19 GMT 2022
* Stefan Liebler via Libc-alpha:
> So far this test checks if pidfd_open-syscall is supported,
> which was introduced with linux 5.3.
>
> The process_madvise-syscall was introduced with linux 5.10.
> Thus you'll get FAILs if you are running a kernel in between.
>
> This patch adds a check if the first process_madvise-syscall
> returns ENOSYS and in this case will fail with UNSUPPORTED.
> ---
> sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-process_madvise.c | 8 ++++++--
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-process_madvise.c b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-process_madvise.c
> index a674e80b76..6fe5a79b1d 100644
> --- a/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-process_madvise.c
> +++ b/sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/tst-process_madvise.c
> @@ -101,8 +101,12 @@ do_test (void)
>
> /* We expect this to succeed in the target process because the mapping
> is valid. */
> - TEST_COMPARE (process_madvise (pidfd, &iv, 1, MADV_COLD, 0),
> - 2 * page_size);
> + errno = 0;
> + ssize_t ret = process_madvise (pidfd, &iv, 1, MADV_COLD, 0);
> + if (ret == -1 && errno == ENOSYS)
> + FAIL_UNSUPPORTED ("kernel does not support process_madvise, skipping"
> + "test");
> + TEST_COMPARE (ret, 2 * page_size);
> }
>
> {
Assigning 0 to errno should not be necessary here. But the patch looks
good otherwise.
Reviewed-by: Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>
Thanks,
Florian
More information about the Libc-alpha
mailing list