Re: [PATCH 2/2] tests: timestamp example

[Jens Axboe <axboe@kernel.dk>]

On 6/30/25 10:50 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
> On 6/30/25 17:45, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>> On 6/30/25 17:20, Jens Axboe wrote:
>>> On 6/30/25 10:09 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote:
>>>> Signed-off-by: Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> A bit of commit message might be nice? Ditto the other patch.
>>> I know they are pretty straight forward, but doesn't hurt to
>>> spell out a bit why the change is being made.
>>
>> It's not like there is much to describe. The only bit
>> I can add is the reference to the selftest as per the CV
>>
>>>> +#ifndef SCM_TS_OPT_ID
>>>> +#define SCM_TS_OPT_ID 0
>>>> +#endif
>>
>> Otherwise it needs to be
>>
>> #ifdef SCM_TS_OPT_ID
>>
>> All tests using SCM_TS_OPT_ID
>>
>> #else
>> int main() {
>>      return skip;
>> }
>> #endif
>>
>> which is even uglier
>>
>>> This one had me a bit puzzled, particularly with:
>>>
>>>> +    if (SCM_TS_OPT_ID == 0) {
>>>> +        fprintf(stderr, "no SCM_TS_OPT_ID, skip\n");
>>>> +        return T_EXIT_SKIP;
>>>> +    }
>>>
>>> as that'll just make the test skip on even my debian unstable/testing
>>> base as it's still not defined there. But I guess it's because it's arch
>>> specific? FWIW, looks like anything but sparc/parisc define it as 81,
>>> hence in terms of coverage might be better to simply define it for
>>> anything but those and actually have the test run?
>>
>> That only works until someone runs it on those arches and complain,
>> i.e. delaying the problem. And I honesty don't want to parse the
>> current architecture and figuring the value just for a test.
> 
> #include <asm/socket.h>
> 
> Is that even legit?

Good question... We can always try. Looking at debian, their newest
package for testing/unstable is 6.12.33 which is why asm doesn't even
have it. There is an 6.15 based package too, but still listed as
experimental.

-- 
Jens Axboe