[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aPKEEuCYbbJbN9Cr@google.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 2025 17:59:46 +0000
From: Mostafa Saleh <smostafa@...gle.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Cc: Robin Murphy <robin.murphy@....com>, iommu@...ts.linux.dev,
linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
will@...nel.org, joro@...tes.org, praan@...gle.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 4/4] iommu/io-pgtable-arm-selftests: Use KUnit
On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 11:13:12AM -0300, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 17, 2025 at 01:04:49PM +0000, Mostafa Saleh wrote:
>
> > Is simple enough and verbose and can distinguished from test failures,
> > it will look like:
> > [ 2.095812] ok 1 arm_lpae_do_selftests # SKIP Failed to allocated device!
> ^^^^^
>
> The test "passed" though, and since we never expect this failure it
> seems wrong to make it pass.
>
> I think there is no point in distinguishing "infrastructure" from
> anything else. Either the test runs to completion and does everything,
> or it fails.
>
> The use of skip is for things where we probe something and detect we
> can't run the test. Like maybe you have a test that relies on
> PAGE_SIZE=4096, or CONFIG_XX so skip other systems.
>
> While, "I hit an OOM so I skip the test" seems wrong to me. Maybe the
> OOM was caused by the "unit under test" leaking memory??
I see, both are fine with me, it seems the kunit maintainer is more
inclined twords the failure approach [1].
So, I can keep the test failing, is it OK Robin?
[1] https://lore.kernel.org/all/CABVgOS=NfRcXYzJVMMKqeXP8SyTewffwb7vdGN1D8esO2f0KOA@mail.gmail.com/
Thanks,
Mostafa
>
> Jason
Powered by blists - more mailing lists