[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c60c25ab-6737-1cc9-4370-dae4ebb4b823@redhat.com>
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 2020 00:58:45 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
Cc: "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: RFC - kernel selftest result documentation (KTAP)
On 19/06/20 20:47, Frank Rowand wrote:
> Or if the entire test depends on the missing config then Bail out might
> be appropriate.
No, in that case you want
1..0 # SKIP: unsupported configuration
The spec is not clear if "Bail out!" is an error condition or just a
warning that only part of the test was run, but prove(1) and Automake
both treat it as the former, for example.
For example, an ENOSPC error creating a temporary file could be turned
into a bail-out, while an ENOSYS would be a skip.
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists