From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from todd.t-8ch.de (todd.t-8ch.de [159.69.126.157]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3214029B0; Sun, 14 Apr 2024 18:37:01 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=159.69.126.157 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713119825; cv=none; b=IXqTv8PolsQkuGUVIejRu7agX1u7xrpSOmmNhRLNrmVjMJDPnPsI285EjUs4ucTaSmtAGl6J1FMRQcYy13MCCn+drZGwljADbB9YV9yauozV+0lEFB3PUPaS0k07s/tWSnbJQHILk2OU5rnRypcQb7DBwISIHRvye/4QXAyIqss= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1713119825; c=relaxed/simple; bh=xJFlMWPbhO6+WK3kaxc8AdE1jzxZJmZ4bwMkrBNxlf8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=lVgVINh82NbRfhdGXIjgTNchlmJ3JhVVBg6GitwHTWJ8OgZy2JCpn0SG0jeF2y2h/QqQ0qQOUL6dkwjU1+bTvDZPaICpBli03tdimCYHIt2LCDZEOqZcm8a8Tne9X9U1Wrs3FuMS1UMzKNP/wdqovtQ333sTuWYqJt6ZfowntJg= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=weissschuh.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=weissschuh.net; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=weissschuh.net header.i=@weissschuh.net header.b=LbeOESU2; arc=none smtp.client-ip=159.69.126.157 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=weissschuh.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=weissschuh.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=weissschuh.net header.i=@weissschuh.net header.b="LbeOESU2" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=weissschuh.net; s=mail; t=1713119819; bh=xJFlMWPbhO6+WK3kaxc8AdE1jzxZJmZ4bwMkrBNxlf8=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=LbeOESU2jXhtSK6Dkm4COT5DG27t+MR3mxNbvW1J0/Y6uJB77Zc2ci9fbwlZovGPN 2HKnhVC8X8LFcK5YrNBz5H47rgZKZeM15GhAUY64cvBt7UReMYntqP9glf5nS3jUGy ogUhQ3sn4j2r1A8lEYXDgn2bDlgyvrxeMxj9Bo4g= Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:36:57 +0200 From: Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= To: Willy Tarreau Cc: Shuah Khan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] tools/nolibc: add support for uname(2) Message-ID: <03d78f65-c753-4e03-8079-d9ad5a6da125@t-8ch.de> References: <20240414-nolibc-uname-v1-1-28a1fdbd5c64@weissschuh.net> <20240414105646.GA2236@1wt.eu> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <20240414105646.GA2236@1wt.eu> 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 Thanks, pushed to nolibc/next. (With a tiny change to skip the testcase if procfs is not available. Thomas