Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH v1 1/9] selftest: sync: basic tests for sw_sync framework | From | Emilio López <> | Date | Mon, 4 Apr 2016 01:12:15 -0300 |
| |
Hi,
El 28/03/16 a las 10:48, Emil Velikov escribió: >>>> These tests are based on the libsync test suite from Android. >>>> This commit lays the ground for future tests, as well as includes >>>> tests for a variety of basic allocation commands. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@collabora.co.uk> >>>> Signed-off-by: Emilio López <emilio.lopez@collabora.co.uk> >>>> --- >>>> >>> >>>> tools/testing/selftests/sync/sync.h | 119 ++++++++++++++++++ >>> >>> Admittedly I know nothing about the kernel selftests although copying >>> the UAPI header, seems to defeat the purpose of this exercise. >>> Shouldn't one reuse the existing header ? It would even cause issues >>> as the interface gets updated (iirc Gustavo changed the ioctl numbers >>> and/or header name with latter series). >> >> >> The problem is that one cannot use the system header without having built >> and installed the kernel first, which is rather problematic for eg. >> crosscompiling or virtualization. I discussed this with Gustavo and we >> agreed that the best way forward would be to copy the interfaces, as >> suggested by kernelnewbies' wiki[0]: >> > In the case of using a system header one can just `make > headers_install' without building the kernel, as mentioned in the very > same page ;-) Although I wasn't thinking that one should be using the > header already available in tree. After all this series is not > supposed to land before Gustavo's work, is it ? > > From a quick skim though the selftests, I cannot see cases where UAPI > headers are copied/duplicated. > >> """ >> The correct way to address this problem is to isolate the specific >> interfaces that you need, e.g. a single header file that is patched in a new >> kernel providing the ioctl numbers for a character device used by your >> program. In your own program, add a copy of that source file, with a notice >> that it should be kept in sync with new kernel versions. >> """ > My understanding of the article is that it refers to building user > space programs that do _not_ live in the same tree as the kernel. Am I > missing something ?
When I tried using the header directly from the kernel tree, the compiler told me not to do that and pointed me to that kernelnewbies page; I could try overriding the check like I see memfd does[0] but I don't know if that's the way to go. Shuah, what's your thoughts on this?
Thanks, Emilio
[0] https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c#n2
| |