[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4bc75566-9cb5-42ec-a6b7-16e04062e0c6@kernel.dk>
Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2025 08:10:16 -0600
From: Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To: Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@...weeb.org>
Cc: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
io-uring Mailing List <io-uring@...r.kernel.org>,
GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@...r.gnuweeb.org>,
Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@...weeb.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH liburing 1/3] Revert "test/io_uring_register: kill old
memfd test"
On 7/14/25 11:06 PM, Alviro Iskandar Setiawan wrote:
> This reverts commit 732bf609b670631731765a585a68d14ed3fdc9b7.
>
> Bring back `CONFIG_HAVE_MEMFD_CREATE` and the associated memfd test
> to resolve Android build failures caused by:
>
> 93d3a7a70b4a ("examples/zcrx: udmabuf backed areas")
>
> It added a call to `memfd_create()`, which is unavailable on some
> Android toolchains, leading to the following build error:
>
> ```
> zcrx.c:111:10: error: call to undeclared function 'memfd_create'; ISO C99 and \
> later do not support implicit function declarations \
> [-Wimplicit-function-declaration]
> 111 | memfd = memfd_create("udmabuf-test", MFD_ALLOW_SEALING);
> | ^
> ```
>
> This reversion is a preparation step for a proper fix by ensuring
> `memfd_create()` usage is guarded and portable. Issue #620 was
> initially unclear, but we now suspect it stemmed from improper
> compiler/linker flag combinations.
Maybe just bring back the configure parts? The test, as mentioned in
that commit, is pretty useless.
--
Jens Axboe
Powered by blists - more mailing lists