On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM, <dyo...@redhat.com> wrote:
> For old glibc there's no the syscall number this tests will cause
> make run_tests fail.
> Add a macro to define the number. This should be ok because it will be
> built in latest kernel source.
>
> Signed-off-by: Dave Young <dyo...@redhat.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c | 3 +++
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+)
>
> --- linux-2.6.orig/tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c 2012-11-23
> 22:37:04.789058192 +0800
> +++ linux-2.6/tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c 2012-11-23
> 22:38:43.195191747 +0800
> @@ -17,6 +17,9 @@
> #include <sys/stat.h>
> #include <sys/wait.h>
>
> +#ifndef __NR_kcmp
> +#define __NR_kcmp 272
> +#endif
Is the syscall number really going to be the same across all architectures?
> static long sys_kcmp(int pid1, int pid2, int type, int fd1, int fd2)
> {
> return syscall(__NR_kcmp, pid1, pid2, type, fd1, fd2);
>
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
