Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 3 Sep 2014 07:53:08 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] memfd_test: Make it work on 32-bit systems | From | David Herrmann <> |
| |
Hi
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com> wrote: > This test currently fails on 32-bit systems since we use u64 type to pass the > flags to fcntl. > > This commit changes this to use 'unsigned int' type for flags to fcntl making it > work on 32-bit systems. > > Signed-off-by: Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com> > --- > v2: use 'unsigned int' instead of u32 > > tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c | 30 ++++++++++++++---------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c > index 3634c90..6f1385a 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/memfd/memfd_test.c > @@ -59,9 +59,9 @@ static void mfd_fail_new(const char *name, unsigned int flags) > } > } > > -static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd) > +static int mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd) > { > - long r; > + int r;
This function can be declared as returning "unsigned int", but keep "r" as int. negative return codes cause an abort(), so we're fine.
> > r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS); > if (r < 0) { > @@ -72,36 +72,34 @@ static __u64 mfd_assert_get_seals(int fd) > return r; > } > > -static void mfd_assert_has_seals(int fd, __u64 seals) > +static void mfd_assert_has_seals(int fd, unsigned int seals) > { > - __u64 s; > + int s; > > s = mfd_assert_get_seals(fd); > if (s != seals) { > - printf("%llu != %llu = GET_SEALS(%d)\n", > - (unsigned long long)seals, (unsigned long long)s, fd); > + printf("%u != %u = GET_SEALS(%d)\n", > + seals, (unsigned int)s, fd);
By making mfd_assert_get_seals() return "unsigned int", you can declare 's' as unsigned, too, and drop this cast.
> abort(); > } > } > > -static void mfd_assert_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals) > +static void mfd_assert_add_seals(int fd, unsigned int seals) > { > - long r; > - __u64 s; > + int r, s; > > s = mfd_assert_get_seals(fd); > r = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, seals); > if (r < 0) { > - printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %llu -> %llu) failed: %m\n", > - fd, (unsigned long long)s, (unsigned long long)seals); > + printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %u -> %u) failed: %m\n", > + fd, (unsigned int)s, seals);
same here
> abort(); > } > } > > -static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals) > +static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, unsigned int seals) > { > - long r; > - __u64 s; > + int r, s; > > r = fcntl(fd, F_GET_SEALS); > if (r < 0) > @@ -111,8 +109,8 @@ static void mfd_fail_add_seals(int fd, __u64 seals) > > r = fcntl(fd, F_ADD_SEALS, seals); > if (r >= 0) { > - printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %llu -> %llu) didn't fail as expected\n", > - fd, (unsigned long long)s, (unsigned long long)seals); > + printf("ADD_SEALS(%d, %u -> %u) didn't fail as expected\n", > + fd, (unsigned int)s, seals);
same here
Sorry for the bike-shedding. Patch looks good, otherwise. With, or without, this changed, this is:
Reviewed-by: David Herrmann <dh.herrmann@gmail.com>
Thanks David
> abort(); > } > } > -- > 2.1.0 >
| |