On 5/8/25 4:36 AM, Amir Goldstein wrote: > On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 9:31 AM John Hubbard <jhubbard@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 5/7/25 1:42 PM, Amir Goldstein wrote: > ... >> Yes, syscalls are the weak point for this approach, and the above is >> reasonable, given the situation, which is: we are not set up to recreate >> per-arch syscall tables for kselftests to use. But this does leave the >> other big arch out in the cold: arm64. >> >> It's easy to add, though, if and when someone wants it. > > I have no problem adding || defined(__arm64__) > it's the same syscall numbers anyway. > > Or I could do > #if !defined(__alpha__) && !defined(_MIPS_SIM) > > but I could not bring myself to do the re-definitions that Christian > added in mount_setattr_test.c for > __NR_mount_setattr, __NR_open_tree, __NR_move_mount > > Note that there are stale definitions for __ia64__ in that file > and the stale definition for __NR_move_mount is even wrong ;) > > Christian, > > How about moving the definitions from mount_setattr_test.c into wrappers.h > and leaving only the common !defined(__alpha__) && !defined(_MIPS_SIM) > case? > By the way, is this approach possibly something that the larger kselftests could use (not in this series, of course)? I recall most of them are doing something that is x86-only, as well. And so if you have made some observations about syscall numbers such as "only alpha and mips are different" (?), I could definitely take that and run with it for the overall kselftests. thanks, -- John Hubbard
