[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Zmnwhx0Y0qh0x03J@google.com>
Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2024 12:01:27 -0700
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>
To: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Anup Patel <anup@...infault.org>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@...ux.dev>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>, kernel@...labora.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: kvm: replace exit() with ksft_exit_fail_msg()
On Wed, Jun 12, 2024, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> The KSFT_FAIL, exit code must be used instead of exit(254).
This needs more justification. KVM selftests have worked just fine for 6+ years
using exit(254), so stating they "must" use KSFT_FAIL is obviously not true.
I'm not personally opposed to switching to KSFT_FAIL, but it is a potentially
breaking change. E.g. some of Google's internal test infrastructure explicitly
relies on the exit code being 254. I don't _think_ that infrastructure interacts
with KVM selftests, nor do I think that forcing upstream KVM selftests to sacrifice
TAP compliance just to play nice with someone's crusty test infrastructure is a
good tradeoff, but this and all of the TAP compliance work needs to be done with
more thought and care.
> The 254 code here seems like anciant relic.
As above, AFAICT it comes from Google's internal test infrastructure (KVM selftests
came from Google).
> Its even better if we use ksft_exit_fail_msg() which will print out "Bail
> out" meaning the test exited without completing. This string is TAP protocol
> specific.
This is debatable and not obviously correct. The documentation says:
Bail out!
As an emergency measure a test script can decide that further tests are
useless (e.g. missing dependencies) and testing should stop immediately. In
that case the test script prints the magic words
which suggests that a test should only emit "Bail out!" if it wants to stop
entirely. We definitely don't want KVM selftests to bail out if a TEST_ASSERT()
fails in one testcase.
> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@...labora.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c
> index 33651f5b3a7fd..db648a7ac429b 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/lib/assert.c
> @@ -87,7 +87,7 @@ test_assert(bool exp, const char *exp_str,
>
> if (errno == EACCES)
> ksft_exit_skip("Access denied - Exiting\n");
> - exit(254);
> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("\n");
> }
>
> return;
> --
> 2.39.2
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists