linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v15 15/15] tracing: Add hist trigger action 'expected fail' test case

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: <20190220133316.587f3941@gandalf.local.home>
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:33:16 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mhiramat@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
        vedang.patel@...el.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        julia@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 15/15] tracing: Add hist trigger action 'expected
 fail' test case

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:10:31 -0600
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org> wrote:

> 
> As far as I understand it (there's no other case of an xfail test in
> the testsuite, so nothing similar to compare it to), the test output is
>  correct - here we get the expected fail, XFAIL, and not a FAIL as any
> test, xfail or normal, that failed would produce:

Yeah, I've been staring at the code, and commit:

915de2adb584a ftracetest: Add POSIX.3 standard and XFAIL result codes


> 
> tools/testing/selftests/ftrace# ./ftracetest test.d/trigger/
> === Ftrace unit tests ===
> [1] event trigger - test inter-event histogram trigger expected fail actions
> [XFAIL]
> [2] event trigger - test extended error support
> [PASS]
> 
> And here the summary shows none failed, while we did have one expected
> xfail, but that's what was expected, and not a failure:
> 
> # of passed:  31
> # of failed:  0
> # of unresolved:  0
> # of untested:  0
> # of unsupported:  0
> # of xfailed:  1

Yeah, but it's marked as RED, which is why I thought it was a failure.

> # of undefined(test bug):  0
> 
> If that's not correct, I'll fix it but at this point I'm not sure what
> the output should be if not that.

OK, so this has nothing to do with your patch set. I've tested
everything else, and I'm ready to finally push my tree to linux-next.

I'm thinking that we should get rid of xfail, as it's really confusing,
and I don't understand its purpose. But that shouldn't stop pushing
your patches.

Thanks,

-- Steve