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

[Pavel Begunkov <asml.silence@gmail.com>]

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?

-- 
Pavel Begunkov