Re: [PATCH v2] kselftests: mm: Fix wrong __NR_userfaultfd value

[David Hildenbrand]

On 23.09.24 07:38, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> grep -rnIF "#define __NR_userfaultfd"
> tools/include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h:681:#define __NR_userfaultfd 282
> arch/x86/include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd_32.h:374:#define
> __NR_userfaultfd 374
> arch/x86/include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd_64.h:327:#define
> __NR_userfaultfd 323
> arch/x86/include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd_x32.h:282:#define
> __NR_userfaultfd (__X32_SYSCALL_BIT + 323)
> arch/arm/include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd-eabi.h:347:#define
> __NR_userfaultfd (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE + 388)
> arch/arm/include/generated/uapi/asm/unistd-oabi.h:359:#define
> __NR_userfaultfd (__NR_SYSCALL_BASE + 388)
> include/uapi/asm-generic/unistd.h:681:#define __NR_userfaultfd 282
>
> The number is dependent on the architecture. The above data shows that:
> x86	374
> x86_64	323
>
> The value of __NR_userfaultfd was changed to 282 when
> asm-generic/unistd.h was included. It makes the test to fail every time
> as the correct number of this syscall on x86_64 is 323. Fix the header
> to asm/unistd.h.
>
> Fixes: a5c6bc590094 ("selftests/mm: remove local __NR_* definitions")
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx>

--
Cheers,

David / dhildenb