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