On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 11:41:23AM +0200, Pekka Enberg wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 24, 2012 at 10:29 AM,  <dyoung@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 <dyoung@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?

Oh, they are different. self NACK. Please ignore this patch.

> 
> >  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 majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> > More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> > Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/