Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-144323-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Sun, 14 Apr 2024 20:36:57 +0200
From: Thomas =?utf-8?Q?Wei=C3=9Fschuh?= <linux@weissschuh.net>
To: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, 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
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 <w@1wt.eu>

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

Thomas