netdev - Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524

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: <20190618.184409.2227845117139305004.davem@davemloft.net>
Date:   Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:44:09 -0400 (EDT)
From:   David Miller <davem@...emloft.net>
To:     willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com
Cc:     gregkh@...uxfoundation.org, naresh.kamboju@...aro.org,
        netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, fklassen@...neta.com
Subject: Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524

From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@...il.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:58:26 -0400

> I see that in similar such cases that use the test harness
> (ksft_test_result_skip) the overall test returns success as long as
> all individual cases return either success or skip.
> 
> I think it's preferable to return KSFT_SKIP if any of the cases did so
> (and none returned an error). I'll do that unless anyone objects.

I guess this is a question of semantics.

I mean, if you report skip at the top level does that mean that all
sub tests were skipped?  People may think so... :)