linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] perf/hw_breakpoint: test: Skip the test if dependencies unmet

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGS_qxr3dRQ8hUwA9LaFrbH9u4mdxjgfqtCByQ7kWCk-U2L-sg@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Wed, 2 Nov 2022 10:38:04 -0700
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@...hat.com>,
        Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>,
        linux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        kasan-dev@...glegroups.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf/hw_breakpoint: test: Skip the test if dependencies unmet

On Wed, Nov 2, 2022 at 3:23 AM Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> Hi David, Daniel,
>
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2022 at 20:31, Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
> [...]
> > > -               return -EINVAL;
> > > +               kunit_skip(test, "not enough cpus");
> >
> > The only minor nit I have is that I'd personally prefer something like
> >   kunit_skip(test, "need >=2 cpus");
> > since that makes it clearer
> > a) that we must only have 1 CPU by default
> > b) roughly how one might address this.
> >
> > Note: b) is a bit more complicated than I would like. The final
> > command is something like
> > $ ./tools/testing/kunit/kunit.py run --arch x86_64 --qemu_args='-smp
> > 2' --kconfig_add='CONFIG_SMP=y'
> >
> > But that's orthogonal to this patch.
>
> Was there going to be a v2 to address (a), or is this patch ready to
> be picked up?
>
> I assume (unless I hear otherwise), this patch shall also go through -tip?

Just noting for the record:
I'm totally fine with this version going in, esp. if Peter is already
planning on picking it up.

This patch makes it so `kunit.py run --arch=x86_64` doesn't have test
failures, so I don't want it delayed due to just my small nit.

Daniel