Hi!
I've tested the patch on i386. Before the patch calling bdflush() with
attempt to tune a variable returned 0 and after the patch the syscall
fails with EINVAL.
Should be ENOSYS, doesn't it?
My bad, the LTP syscall wrapper handles ENOSYS and produces skipped
results based on that.
EINVAL is what you get for not yet implemented syscalls, i.e. new
syscall on old kernel.
EINVAL? Is that a bdflush-specific thing, test-specific, or is itmore
general?
glibc has fallback paths that test for ENOSYS only. EINVAL will be
passed to the application, skipping fallback. For missing system calls,
this is not what we want.
The syscall returns ENOSYS after this change, sorry for the confusion.
--
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@xxxxxxx
