Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: add support for uname(2)

["Thomas Weißschuh" <linux@weissschuh.net>]

Hi Willy!

On 2024-04-14 12:56:46+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 09:56:23AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote:
> > All supported kernels are assumed to use struct new_utsname.
> > This is validated in test_uname().
> > 
> > uname(2) can for example be used in ksft_min_kernel_version() from the
> > kernels selftest framework.
> > 
> > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240412123536.GA32444@redhat.com/
> 
> I find it really annoying when other developers waste time trying to
> work around some missing trivial syscalls. I would have bet we already
> had this one, but obviously not.

It's a bit annoying to validate that it works given the fact there are
the structs new_utsname, old_utsname and oldold_utsname...

> That's obviously an ack by me: Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>

Thanks, pushed to nolibc/next.
(With a tiny change to skip the testcase if procfs is not available.

Thomas