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
| ||
|
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 20:38:19 -0400 From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> To: David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> Cc: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, Naresh Kamboju <naresh.kamboju@...aro.org>, Network Development <netdev@...r.kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>, "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>, Fred Klassen <fklassen@...neta.com> Subject: Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524 On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:44 PM David Miller <davem@...emloft.net> wrote: > > From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com> > Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:58:26 -0400 > > > I see that in similar such cases that use the test harness > > (ksft_test_result_skip) the overall test returns success as long as > > all individual cases return either success or skip. > > > > I think it's preferable to return KSFT_SKIP if any of the cases did so > > (and none returned an error). I'll do that unless anyone objects. > > I guess this is a question of semantics. > > I mean, if you report skip at the top level does that mean that all > sub tests were skipped? People may think so... :) Yes, it's not ideal. Erring on the side of caution? Unlike pass, it is a signal that an admin may or may not choose to act on. I run a selected subset of tests from tools/testing that are all expected to pass, so if one returns skip, I would want to take a closer look.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists