On 8/24/21 5:36 AM, Christian Brauner wrote:
On Tue, Aug 24, 2021 at 09:21:29PM +1000, Aleksa Sarai wrote:
On 2021-08-23, Shuah Khan skhan@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
Hi Baolin,
On 8/22/21 8:40 PM, Baolin Wang wrote:
Hi Shuah,
On 2021/7/28 20:32, Baolin Wang wrote:
Hi,
When running the openat2 test suite on ARM64 platform, we got below failure, since the definition of the O_LARGEFILE is different on ARM64. So we can set the correct O_LARGEFILE definition on ARM64 to fix this issue.
Sorry, I forgot to copy the failure log:
Please cc everybody get_maintainers.pl suggests. You are missing key reviewers for this change.
Adding Christian Brauner and Aleksa Sarai to the thread.
# openat2 unexpectedly returned # 3['/lkp/benchmarks/kernel_selftests/tools/testing/selftests/openat2'] with 208000 (!= 208000)
Not sure I understand this. 208000 (!= 208000) look sthe same to me.
not ok 102 openat2 with incompatible flags (O_PATH | O_LARGEFILE) fails with -22 (Invalid argument)
Signed-off-by: Baolin Wang baolin.wang@linux.alibaba.com
Could you apply this patch if no objection from your side? Thanks.
Ideally this define should come from an include file.
The issue is that O_LARGEFILE is set to 0 by glibc because glibc appears to hide the nuts and bolts of largefile support from userspace. I couldn't find a nice way of doing a architecture-dependent includes of include/uapi from kselftests, so I just went with this instead -- but I agree that a proper include would be better if someone can figure out how to do it.
From a quick look, it will take sone work to consolidate multiple O_LARGEFILE defines.
I'd just add arch-dependent defines for now and call it good. So seems good enough for me:
Thanks! Acked-by: Christian Brauner christian.brauner@ubuntu.com
Christian, Aleksa,
Can you review this patch and let me know if this approach looks right.
Reviewed-by: Aleksa Sarai cyphar@cyphar.com
Thank you for the patch and the reviews. I will apply this for 5.15-rc1
thanks, -- Shuah