[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20240408184957.GD25058@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 20:49:57 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@...hat.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@...gle.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>, John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>,
Marco Elver <elver@...gle.com>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Ingo Molnar <mingo@...nel.org>,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
kasan-dev@...glegroups.com, Edward Liaw <edliaw@...gle.com>,
Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@...gle.com>,
Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/timers/posix_timers: reimplement
check_timer_distribution()
On 04/08, Oleg Nesterov wrote:
>
> On 04/08, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > if (ctd_failed)
> > > ksft_test_result_skip("No signal distribution. Assuming old kernel\n");
> >
> > Shouldn't the test fail here? The goal of a test is to fail when
> > things don't work.
>
> I've copied this from the previous patch from Thomas, I am fine
> either way.
>
> > I don't see any other ksft_test_result_fail() calls, and it does not
> > look that the test will hang on incorrect distribution.
>
> Yes, it should never hang.
Forgot to say...
To me this test should simply do
ksft_test_result(!ctd_failed, "check signal distribution\n");
return 0;
but I am not familiar with tools/testing/selftests/ and I am not sure
I understand the last email from Thomas.
I agree with whatever you and Thomas decide.
Oleg.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists