linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] ftracetest: Add XFAIL/XPASS/UNSUPPORTED as result code

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <53FFD1E8.6070508@osg.samsung.com>
Date:	Thu, 28 Aug 2014 19:05:44 -0600
From:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
To:	Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>,
	Shuah Khan <shuah.kh@...sung.com>,
	Tom Zanussi <tom.zanussi@...ux.intel.com>,
	Yoshihiro YUNOMAE <yoshihiro.yunomae.ez@...achi.com>,
	Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>,
	Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
	Namhyung Kim <namhyung@...nel.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>
CC:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 4/4] ftracetest: Add XFAIL/XPASS/UNSUPPORTED as
 result code

On 08/26/2014 05:15 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Add XFAIL, XPASS and UNSUPPORTED as a result code. These are
> used for the results that test case is expected to fail or
> unsupported feature (by config).
> This also introduces PASS/FAIL/XFAIL/XPASS/UNSUP result codes
> for each testcase. Since the results are not binary, each
> testcase must use these code to return the test result.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu.pt@...achi.com>
> ---
>  tools/testing/ftrace/ftracetest                    |   61 +++++++++++++++-----
>  tools/testing/ftrace/test.d/basic1.tc              |    6 ++
>  tools/testing/ftrace/test.d/basic2.tc              |    6 +-
>  tools/testing/ftrace/test.d/basic3.tc              |    9 ++-
>  .../testing/ftrace/test.d/kprobe/add_and_remove.tc |   15 +++--
>  tools/testing/ftrace/test.d/kprobe/busy_check.tc   |   20 +++----
>  tools/testing/ftrace/test.d/template               |    6 ++
>  7 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/ftrace/ftracetest b/tools/testing/ftrace/ftracetest
> index 0378c8a..bfcd56a 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/ftrace/ftracetest
> +++ b/tools/testing/ftrace/ftracetest
> @@ -107,22 +107,53 @@ catlog() { #file
>  }
>  
>  # Testcase management
> +# Test result codes
> +PASS=0	# The test succeeded.
> +FAIL=1	# The test failed, but was expected to succeed.
> +XFAIL=2	# The test failed, and was expected to fail.
> +XPASS=3	# The test succeeded, but was expected to fail.

This one is confusing. It is still a failure. XFAIL case is
expected to fail, using that convention XPASS should be
expected to pass?

Can we use XFAIL0 for XFAIL pass case and XFAIL1 for XFAIL fail
case?

thanks,
-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@....samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/