From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2020 17:25:36 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH v1 3/3] syscalls/msgrcv09: Add error test for MSG_COPY flag In-Reply-To: References: <1595230227-21468-1-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <1595230227-21468-4-git-send-email-xuyang2018.jy@cn.fujitsu.com> <20200813141953.GG13292@yuki.lan> Message-ID: <20200813152536.GH13292@yuki.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > >> +static struct tst_test test = { > >> + .needs_tmpdir = 1, > >> + .needs_root = 1, > >> + .needs_kconfigs = (const char *[]) { > >> + "CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE", > >> + NULL > >> + }, > >> + .min_kver = "3.8.0", > >> + .tcnt = ARRAY_SIZE(tcases), > >> + .test = verify_msgrcv, > >> + .setup = setup, > >> + .cleanup = cleanup, > >> +}; > > > > Do we need both min_kver and CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE? Wouldn't be > > CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE enough? > I think we need both because the CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE macro was not > introduced since 3.8. Before 3.8, we can enable this config but the > kernel does not support this MSG_COPY FLAG. > also using "CONFIG_CHECKPOINT_RESTORE=y" is better. Ah, makes sense. I wonder if this worth a comment in the top level test description. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz