Re: lapi/prctl: add more fallback definitions

> > +#if !(HAVE_STRUCT_PRCTL_MM_MAP) && !defined(PR_SET_MM_MAP)
> 
> Could this struct guard depend only on HAVE_STRUCT_PRCTL_MM_MAP?
> 
> PR_SET_MM_MAP is defined immediately above, so !defined(PR_SET_MM_MAP) is
> always false here. Systems missing struct prctl_mm_map therefore skip the
> fallback even when HAVE_STRUCT_PRCTL_MM_MAP is false, and the second patch
> cannot compile there.

I'm having issues with this, since it seems struct prctl_mm_map gate it not
enough to ensure fallback is not replicating the original one.

> > +	SAFE_PRCTL(PR_SET_MM, PR_SET_MM_MAP_SIZE, (unsigned long)&sz, 0, 0);
> 
> Could this test set .min_kver = "3.18", or report TCONF when this operation
> is unavailable?

We don't support this kernel. Agent is going really deep with this, so I
guess I need to add a rule to avoid checking for versions below 4.4.

--
Andrea Cervesato
SUSE QE Automation Engineer Linux
andrea.cervesato-IBi9RG/[email protected]

-- 
Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp