[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CALAqxLUxiLmq7dPDvaQ2mCw7QgBEvFtetZJXzxiiYPJg0M5JEg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Aug 2017 17:36:21 -0700
From: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
To: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...eaurora.org>,
lkml <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: timers: Fix run_destructive_tests target to
handle skipped tests
On Thu, Aug 17, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:
> When a test exits with skip exit code of 4, "make run_destructive_tests"
> halts testing. Fix run_destructive_tests target to handle error exit codes.
>
> Reported-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile | 26 +++++++++++++-------------
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile
> index c805ab048d26..6c1327278d5f 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile
> @@ -13,20 +13,20 @@ TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED = alarmtimer-suspend valid-adjtimex adjtick change_skew
>
> include ../lib.mk
>
> +define RUN_DESTRUCTIVE_TESTS
> + @for TEST in $(TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED); do \
> + BASENAME_TEST=`basename $$TEST`; \
> + if [ ! -x $$BASENAME_TEST ]; then \
> + echo "selftests: Warning: file $$BASENAME_TEST is not executable, correct this.";\
> + echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [FAIL]"; \
> + else \
> + cd `dirname $$TEST`; (./$$BASENAME_TEST && echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [PASS]") || echo "selftests: $$BASENAME_TEST [FAIL]"; cd -;\
> + fi; \
> + done;
> +endef
One more on this... you might remove rtctest_setdate from the
TEST_GEN_PROGS_EXTENDED list, since it too requires arguments to test,
and it wasn't a part of run_destructive_tests previously.
I see Benjamin added this test not long ago, but I'm not sure exactly
how he expects it to be run (just manually?).
thanks
-john
Powered by blists - more mailing lists