[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <54036090.1050104@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:51:12 -0400
From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
To: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@...il.com>
CC: Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Anton Blanchard <anton@...ba.org>,
Fabian Frederick <fabf@...net.be>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
"open list:LINUX FOR POWERPC..." <linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] powerpc: Wire up three syscalls
On 08/31/2014 10:34 AM, David Herrmann wrote:
> The only arch-dependent code for memfd_test.c is the syscall invocation:
> memfd_create(const char *name, unsigned int flags);
> via glibc as:
> syscall(__NR_memfd_create, name, flags);
>
> Can you debug your test-run (maybe via simple printk() in mm/shmem.c
> memfd_create()) and see what's going wrong there?
>
Hi David,
I figured out the problem. I am on a 32-bit system and using u64 for flags in fcntl() is the cause of the problem. Will you accept a patch making the test work on 32-bit systems as below?
Thanks!
--
Pranith
From: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 13:38:07 -0400
Subject: [PATCH] memfd_test: Make it work on 32-bit systems
This test currently fails on 32-bit systems since we use u64 type to pass the
flags to fcntl.
This commit changes this to use u32 type for flags to fcntl making it work on
32-bit systems.
Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@...il.com>
---
tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 32 +++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
index 3634c90..77e56ff 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c
@@ -59,9 +59,9 @@ static void mfd_fail_new(const char *name, unsigned int flags)
}
}
-static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
+static __u32 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
{
- long r;
+ int r;
r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS);
if (r < 0) {
@@ -72,36 +72,36 @@ static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd)
return r;
}
-static void mfd_assert_has_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
+static void mfd_assert_has_seals(int fd, __u32 seals)
{
- __u64 s;
+ __u32 s;
s = mfd_assert_get_seals(fd);
if (s != seals) {
- printf("%llu != %llu = GET_SEALS(%d)\n",
- (unsigned long long)seals, (unsigned long long)s, fd);
+ printf("%lu != %lu = GET_SEALS(%d)\n",
+ (unsigned long)seals, (unsigned long)s, fd);
abort();
}
}
-static void mfd_assert_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
+static void mfd_assert_add_seals(int fd, __u32 seals)
{
- long r;
- __u64 s;
+ int r;
+ __u32 s;
s = mfd_assert_get_seals(fd);
r = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, seals);
if (r < 0) {
- printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %llu -> %llu) failed: %m\n",
- fd, (unsigned long long)s, (unsigned long long)seals);
+ printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %lu -> %lu) failed: %m\n",
+ fd, (unsigned long)s, (unsigned long)seals);
abort();
}
}
-static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
+static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u32 seals)
{
- long r;
- __u64 s;
+ int r;
+ __u32 s;
r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS);
if (r < 0)
@@ -111,8 +111,8 @@ static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals)
r = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, seals);
if (r >= 0) {
- printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %llu -> %llu) didn't fail as expected\n",
- fd, (unsigned long long)s, (unsigned long long)seals);
+ printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %lu -> %lu) didn't fail as expected\n",
+ fd, (unsigned long)s, (unsigned long)seals);
abort();
}
}
--
2.1.0
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists