On 28 March 2016 at 13:20, Emilio López <emilio.lopez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi, > > El 28/03/16 a las 08:56, Emil Velikov escribió: >> >> Hi Emilio, >> >> On 9 March 2016 at 15:28, Emilio López <emilio.lopez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> wrote: >>> >>> These tests are based on the libsync test suite from Android. >>> This commit lays the ground for future tests, as well as includes >>> tests for a variety of basic allocation commands. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Gustavo Padovan <gustavo.padovan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Emilio López <emilio.lopez@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> --- >>> >> >>> tools/testing/selftests/sync/sync.h | 119 ++++++++++++++++++ >> >> Admittedly I know nothing about the kernel selftests although copying >> the UAPI header, seems to defeat the purpose of this exercise. >> Shouldn't one reuse the existing header ? It would even cause issues >> as the interface gets updated (iirc Gustavo changed the ioctl numbers >> and/or header name with latter series). > > > The problem is that one cannot use the system header without having built > and installed the kernel first, which is rather problematic for eg. > crosscompiling or virtualization. I discussed this with Gustavo and we > agreed that the best way forward would be to copy the interfaces, as > suggested by kernelnewbies' wiki[0]: > In the case of using a system header one can just `make headers_install' without building the kernel, as mentioned in the very same page ;-) Although I wasn't thinking that one should be using the header already available in tree. After all this series is not supposed to land before Gustavo's work, is it ? >From a quick skim though the selftests, I cannot see cases where UAPI headers are copied/duplicated. > """ > The correct way to address this problem is to isolate the specific > interfaces that you need, e.g. a single header file that is patched in a new > kernel providing the ioctl numbers for a character device used by your > program. In your own program, add a copy of that source file, with a notice > that it should be kept in sync with new kernel versions. > """ My understanding of the article is that it refers to building user space programs that do _not_ live in the same tree as the kernel. Am I missing something ? Regards, Emil _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
