[PATCH 2/2] kselftest/arm64: Check for -EPERM not -EBUSY in the locking test

[Mark Brown]

The API has been updated to return the more permissive -EPERM rather
than -EBUSY, update the selftest to reflect this.

Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <broonie@xxxxxxxxxx>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/arm64/gcs/gcs-locking.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/gcs/gcs-locking.c b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/gcs/gcs-locking.c
index 1e6abb136ffd..f780f0c7b8dd 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/gcs/gcs-locking.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/gcs/gcs-locking.c
@@ -115,7 +115,7 @@ TEST_F(valid_modes, enable_lock_disable)
 	ASSERT_EQ(ret, 0);
 
 	ret = my_syscall2(__NR_prctl, PR_SET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, 0);
-	ASSERT_EQ(ret, -EBUSY);
+	ASSERT_EQ(ret, -EPERM);
 
 	_exit(0);
 }
@@ -131,7 +131,7 @@ TEST_F(valid_modes, lock_enable)
 
 	ret = my_syscall2(__NR_prctl, PR_SET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS,
 			  variant->mode);
-	ASSERT_EQ(ret, -EBUSY);
+	ASSERT_EQ(ret, -EPERM);
 
 	ret = prctl(PR_GET_SHADOW_STACK_STATUS, &mode, 0, 0, 0);
 	ASSERT_EQ(ret, 0);

-- 
2.47.3