[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <9ddfac6e-473d-1856-3ab7-ff61ccf11ac6@redhat.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 08:21:42 +0200
From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
To: Christian Brauner <christian.brauner@...ntu.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, shuah@...nel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, keescook@...omium.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/6] selftests: pidfd: do not use ksft_exit_skip after
ksft_set_plan
On 23/06/20 22:44, Christian Brauner wrote:
>> ret = sys_pidfd_send_signal(pidfd, 0, NULL, 0);
>> if (ret < 0) {
>> - if (errno == ENOSYS)
>> - ksft_exit_skip(
>> + if (errno == ENOSYS) {
>> + ksft_test_result_skip(
>> "%s test: pidfd_send_signal() syscall not supported\n",
>> test_name);
> If pidfd_send_signal() is not supported, you're falling through and then
> you're reporting:
>
> ok 5 # SKIP pidfd_send_signal check for support test: pidfd_send_signal() syscall not supported
> ok 6 pidfd_send_signal check for support test: pidfd_send_signal() syscall is supported. Tests can be executed
You're right, this needs a "return".
Paolo
Powered by blists - more mailing lists