[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:23:48 -0700
From: Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@...il.com>
To: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@...hat.com>
Cc: bpf <bpf@...r.kernel.org>, Hangbin Liu <haliu@...hat.com>,
Daniel Borkmann <borkmann@...earbox.net>,
Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@...il.com>,
Veronika Kabatova <vkabatov@...hat.com>,
Jiri Benc <jbenc@...hat.com>, Yonghong Song <yhs@...com>,
Martin Lau <kafai@...com>, Networking <netdev@...r.kernel.org>,
open list <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH bpf-next V3 0/2] BPF selftests test runner 'test_progs'
use proper shell exit codes
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:12 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
<brouer@...hat.com> wrote:
>
> This patchset makes it easier to use test_progs from shell scripts, by using
> proper shell exit codes. The process's exit status should be a number
> between 0 and 255 as defined in man exit(3) else it will be masked to comply.
>
> Shell exit codes used by programs should be below 127. As 127 and above are
> used for indicating signals. E.g. 139 means 11=SIGSEGV $((139 & 127))=11.
> POSIX defines in man wait(3p) signal check if WIFSIGNALED(STATUS) and
> WTERMSIG(139)=11. (Hint: cmd 'kill -l' list signals and their numbers).
>
> Using Segmentation fault as an example, as these have happened before with
> different tests (that are part of test_progs). CI people writing these
> shell-scripts could pickup these hints and report them, if that makes sense.
>
> ---
>
> Jesper Dangaard Brouer (2):
> selftests/bpf: test_progs use another shell exit on non-actions
> selftests/bpf: test_progs avoid minus shell exit codes
>
>
> tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c | 13 ++++++++-----
> 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>
> --
>
For the series:
Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@...com>
My preference was shorter EXIT_ERR_SETUP, but it doesn't matter.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists