lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2015]   [Sep]   [8]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
SubjectRe: [PATCH 6/7] selftests: only compile userfaultfd for x86 and powperpc
From
Date
Hi, Michael

I thought I reply to you, but ...

On 08/31/2015 11:26 AM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-08-14 at 21:43 +0800, Bamvor Jian Zhang wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Bamvor Jian Zhang <bamvor.zhangjian@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile | 12 ++++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>> index bb888c6..4dd6e4f 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/Makefile
>> @@ -1,5 +1,15 @@
>> # Makefile for vm selftests
>>
>> +uname_M := $(shell uname -m 2>/dev/null || echo not)
>> +ARCH ?= $(shell echo $(uname_M) | sed -e s/i.86/i386/ -e s/ppc.*/powerpc/)
>> +
>> +ifeq ($(ARCH),powerpc)
>> +support_userfaultfd = yes
>> +endif
>> +ifeq ($(ARCH),x86)
>> +support_userfaultfd = yes
>> +endif
>> +
>> CFLAGS = -Wall
>> BINARIES = compaction_test
>> BINARIES += hugepage-mmap
>> @@ -9,7 +19,9 @@ BINARIES += mlock2-tests
>> BINARIES += on-fault-limit
>> BINARIES += thuge-gen
>> BINARIES += transhuge-stress
>> +ifdef support_userfaultfd
>> BINARIES += userfaultfd
>> +endif
>>
>> all: $(BINARIES)
>> %: %.c
>
>
> This is nasty. It means when userfaultfd gets implemented for other arches
> someone has to remember to update the logic here, which they won't.
>
> Instead the C program should just do nothing when __NR_userfaultfd is not defined, eg:
>
> #ifdef __NR_userfaultfd
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> ...
> }
>
> #else
>
> int main(void)
> {
> printf("skip: Skipping userfaultfd test\n");
> return 0;
> }
> #endif
>
>
> This way when the syscall is implemented for other arches the test will just
> start working.
>
> cheers
>
>
When read the following code, It seems that sometimes __NR_userfaultfd is not
defined but the syscall is exist. I am not sure why these piece is needed.
cc'd c

#ifndef __NR_userfaultfd
#ifdef __x86_64__
#define __NR_userfaultfd 323
#elif defined(__i386__)
#define __NR_userfaultfd 374
#elif defined(__powewrpc__)
#define __NR_userfaultfd 364
#else
#error "missing __NR_userfaultfd definition"
#endif
#endif

Do you mean that we should remove the above code?

regards

bamvor


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2015-09-08 11:41    [W:0.077 / U:0.740 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site