On Mon, Jul 03, 2017 at 06:11:56PM +0200, Ruediger Meier wrote:
> Yes I understand. This global way was just for first tests without
> changing much code. To be honest, while I was very happy first about
> quick results, I am now a bit unsure whether this sysroot feature will
> be much useful at all.
>
> See, even lscpu --sysroot does not work fully transparently. We have to
> ignore "Architecture". So maybe we would also need a fake-syscall
> interface for many cases!? Also we are sometimes writing to /sys and
> probably expect some events.
well, zramctl writes to /sys, but another utils just read.
> I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to construct chroot or container
> environments with whatever /sys, /proc, /etc. to test certain things.
Yes, chroot would be good enough for the tests.
The path functions are not only about --sysroot, but it also provides
interface for things like "read file content as utnt64, strdup(), etc.
> So I thought we could use my quick-and-dirty approach to implement some
> more --sysroot tests just to see if we will get something useful at
> all.
I do not see a problem to kill --sysroot and use chroot, but we still
need openat and another things.
Karel
--
Karel Zak <kzak@xxxxxxxxxx>
http://karelzak.blogspot.com
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe util-linux" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
