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
