[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <4ed23cd5-f4a1-aa70-183f-fbea407c19ee@mojatatu.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2021 11:41:18 -0500
From: Jamal Hadi Salim <jhs@...atatu.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Davide Caratti <dcaratti@...hat.com>
Cc: Li Zhijian <zhijianx.li@...el.com>, shuah@...nel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, lizhijian@...fujitsu.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, lkp@...el.com, philip.li@...el.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/3] selftests/tc-testing: add exit code
On 2021-11-17 09:05, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Wed, 17 Nov 2021 09:55:14 +0100 Davide Caratti wrote:
>> On Wed, Nov 17, 2021 at 01:45:15PM +0800, Li Zhijian wrote:
>>> Mark the summary result as FAIL to prevent from confusing the selftest
>>> framework if some of them are failed.
>>>
>>> Previously, the selftest framework always treats it as *ok* even though
>>> some of them are failed actually. That's because the script tdc.sh always
>>> return 0.
>>
>> yes, also tdc was lacking support for KSFT_SKIP for a long time.
>
> Should this go via netdev? Is the risk of conflicts low enough
> so it doesn't matter?
>
Yes, discussions should at minimal Cc netdev + tc maintainers.
> We should probably add a MAINTAINERS entry for tdc. Adding Jamal.
Did you mean adding a maintainer for tdc or just generally point
who/what to involve when making changes? Typically the mailing list
should be sufficient. Outside the list, at the moment, any outstanding
issues on tdc are discussed/resolved in the monthly TC meetups (where
all the stake holders show up)...
cheers,
jamal
Powered by blists - more mailing lists