Hi
On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Pranith Kumar <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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 <[email protected]>
Thanks
David
> abort();
> }
> }
> --
> 2.1.0
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
