linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kselftest/alsa: Mark test plan as skipped when no cards are available

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

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

Message-ID: <a12b1144-bea0-4bd7-a429-da800dc8f568@notapiano>
Date:   Tue, 12 Sep 2023 15:23:34 -0400
From:   Nícolas F. R. A. Prado 
        <nfraprado@...labora.com>
To:     Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
Cc:     Takashi Iwai <tiwai@...e.com>, kernel@...labora.com,
        Jaroslav Kysela <perex@...ex.cz>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, alsa-devel@...a-project.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kselftest/alsa: Mark test plan as skipped when no cards
 are available

On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 03:29:00PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 11, 2023 at 08:35:37AM -0400, Nícolas F. R. A. Prado wrote:
> > On Sat, Sep 09, 2023 at 12:08:22AM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> 
> > > Why?
> 
> > To better reflect the actual test plan status. If 0 tests were run, it doesn't
> > really make sense to say that the test plan passed, rather it was skipped since
> > nothing was run. So with this change, if there's a regression that prevents the
> > soundcard driver from even probing, the result won't be "pass", but "skip", and
> > the reason 'No soundcard available' will be in the logs.
> 
> So, I would interpret the overall result for the suite as being "No
> errors were found in any of the cards discovered" if there is no
> configuration file specified which enumerates the set of cards that are
> expected (if there is a config file that's a different matter, we know
> what we're expecting).  I'm not sure that the different behaviour for 0
> cards is super useful.

Right... So what we want to be doing is adding a config file for every platform
defining the card(s) and PCMs expected, so that when they're missing a test
failure will be triggered which is even more helpful. Although I've noticed that
only missing PCMs are detected currently, but I imagine it should be possible to
to extend the code to detect missing cards as well.

I take it the intention is to expand the conf.d directory with configs for all
platforms currently being tested then? There's only one example file there so I
wasn't sure.

Thanks,
Nícolas