On Wed, Oct 12, 2022 at 11:19 PM Jérémie Galarneau <jeremie.galarn...@efficios.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 07, 2022 at 10:39:18AM +1000, Alistair Francis via lttng-dev > wrote: > > Hi Alistair, > > The first patch is good, I'll merge it in master. > Some comments on this patch follow.
Thanks! > > > From: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com> > > > > Add support for the 64-bit time_t syscalls SYS_ppoll_time64 > > and SYS_pselect6_time64. > > > > These are the syscalls that exist 32-bit platforms since the 5.1 kernel. > > 32-bit platforms with a 64-bit time_t only have these and don't have the > > original syscalls (such as 32-bit RISC-V). > > > > Fixes: https://github.com/lttng/lttng-tools/pull/162 > > Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com> > > --- > > tests/regression/kernel/select_poll_epoll.cpp | 53 +++++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 53 insertions(+) > > > > diff --git a/tests/regression/kernel/select_poll_epoll.cpp > > b/tests/regression/kernel/select_poll_epoll.cpp > > index c0b688217..4a6d394f4 100644 > > --- a/tests/regression/kernel/select_poll_epoll.cpp > > +++ b/tests/regression/kernel/select_poll_epoll.cpp > > @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@ > > * > > */ > > > > +#include <errno.h> > > #include <fcntl.h> > > #include <limits.h> > > #include <poll.h> > > @@ -456,8 +457,22 @@ void ppoll_fds_buffer_overflow( > > ufds[0].fd = wait_fd; > > ufds[0].events = POLLIN|POLLPRI; > > > > +#ifdef SYS_ppoll_time64 > > + /* > > + * As there is no timeout value, we don't convert to/from > > + * 64/32-bit time_t. > > + */ > > + ret = syscall(SYS_ppoll_time64, ufds, 100, NULL, NULL); > > + if (ret == 0 || errno != ENOSYS) { > > + goto ppoll_fds_buffer_overflow_done; > > + } > > +#endif > > + > > This results in the following warning when building for an architecture > that doesn't have SYS_ppoll_time64 defined: > > label ‘ppoll_fds_buffer_overflow_done’ defined but not used [-Wunused-label] > ppoll_fds_buffer_overflow_done: > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > select_poll_epoll.cpp: In function ‘void ppoll_fds_ulong_max(FILE*)’: Argh, I'll fix this > > > Also, it is my understanding that both syscalls can be available on some > platforms. In that case, it would make sense to add them as separate > tests and skip tests that target non-existant syscalls. So all 32-bit platforms since the 5.1 (or 5.4?) kernel have both syscalls. From my understanding the original syscalls will be removed on 32-bit platforms at some point (before 2038) and there will only be *_time64 variants. If you want I can copy the tests to test both syscall types, but I don't think that's necessary. Alistair _______________________________________________ lttng-dev mailing list lttng-dev@lists.lttng.org https://lists.lttng.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lttng-dev
