On Mon, 16 Mar 2026, Joe Lawrence wrote: > On Fri, Mar 13, 2026 at 05:58:32PM -0300, Marcos Paulo de Souza wrote: > > Instead of checking if the architecture running the test was powerpc, > > check if CONF_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER is defined or not.
There is a typo... s/CONF_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER/CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER/ > > > > No functional changes. > > > > Signed-off-by: Marcos Paulo de Souza <[email protected]> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_syscall.c | 7 > > +++---- > > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git > > a/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_syscall.c > > b/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_syscall.c > > index dd802783ea849..c01a586866304 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_syscall.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/livepatch/test_modules/test_klp_syscall.c > > @@ -12,15 +12,14 @@ > > #include <linux/slab.h> > > #include <linux/livepatch.h> > > > > -#if defined(__x86_64__) > > +#if !defined(CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER) > > +#define FN_PREFIX > > +#elif defined(__x86_64__) > > #define FN_PREFIX __x64_ > > #elif defined(__s390x__) > > #define FN_PREFIX __s390x_ > > #elif defined(__aarch64__) > > #define FN_PREFIX __arm64_ > > -#else > > -/* powerpc does not select ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER */ > > -#define FN_PREFIX > > The patch does maintain the previous behavior, but I'm wondering if the > original assertion about ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER on Power was correct: > > $ grep ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER arch/powerpc/Kconfig > select ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER if !SPU_BASE && !COMPAT > depends on PPC64 && ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER > > Perhaps I just forgot what that additional piece of information that > explains the comment (highly probable these days), and if so, might be > nice to add to this commit since I don't see it in 6a71770442b5 > ("selftests: livepatch: Test livepatching a heavily called syscall"). I would take a bit further. We would rely on CONFIG_ARCH_HAS_SYSCALL_WRAPPER being set/unset per listed architectures "correctly" for us. If it changes somehow (though I cannot imagine reasons for that but let's say we add new architecture. LoongArch also supports live patching.), the above might evaluate to something broken. So I would perhaps prefer to stay with the logic that defines FN_PREFIX per architecture and has also #else branch for the rest. And more comments never hurt. Btw, see also https://sashiko.dev/#/patchset/20260313-lp-tests-old-fixes-v1-0-71ac6dfb3253%40suse.com for the Sashiko AI review. It also commented on this patch. Marcos, I guess that you will look there and I will just omit what Sashiko found in my review if I spot the same thing. Miroslav
