Hi Willy! On 2024-04-14 12:56:46+0200, Willy Tarreau wrote: > On Sun, Apr 14, 2024 at 09:56:23AM +0200, Thomas Weißschuh wrote: > > All supported kernels are assumed to use struct new_utsname. > > This is validated in test_uname(). > > > > uname(2) can for example be used in ksft_min_kernel_version() from the > > kernels selftest framework. > > > > Link: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20240412123536.GA32444@xxxxxxxxxx/ > > I find it really annoying when other developers waste time trying to > work around some missing trivial syscalls. I would have bet we already > had this one, but obviously not. It's a bit annoying to validate that it works given the fact there are the structs new_utsname, old_utsname and oldold_utsname... > That's obviously an ack by me: Acked-by: Willy Tarreau <w@xxxxxx> Thanks, pushed to nolibc/next. (With a tiny change to skip the testcase if procfs is not available. Thomas
