On Sat, May 20, 2023 at 04:00:54PM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c > > index 063f9959ac44..d8b59c8f6c03 100644 > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c > > @@ -596,7 +596,7 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max) > > CASE_TEST(write_badf); EXPECT_SYSER(1, write(-1, &tmp, 1), -1, EBADF); break; > > CASE_TEST(write_zero); EXPECT_SYSZR(1, write(1, &tmp, 0)); break; > > CASE_TEST(syscall_noargs); EXPECT_SYSEQ(1, syscall(__NR_getpid), getpid()); break; > > - CASE_TEST(syscall_args); EXPECT_SYSER(1, syscall(__NR_fstat, 0, NULL), -1, EFAULT); break; > > + CASE_TEST(syscall_args); EXPECT_SYSER(1, syscall(__NR_read, -1, &tmp, 1), -1, EBADF); break; > > The goal of this second test was to make sure that arguments are passed > in the correct order. For this I tried to have a syscall were the > checked error is generated from a non-first argument. > (The NULL generating the EFAULT). > So the new check does not fullfil this goal anymore. Ah OK good to know. > Maybe we can find a new syscall to test with? Maybe it would be worth considering pselect() or equivalent which involve many arguments. I don't know if rv32 has fstatat() or lstat() for example, that could be used as alternatives ? > The code should have had a comment I guess. Indeed ;-) With that said, if rv32 is missing some essential syscalls, my question regarding its relevance here still holds! Willy
