[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aQJIS4waEjTCL/hI@devvm11784.nha0.facebook.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2025 10:00:59 -0700
From: Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@...il.com>
To: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>
Cc: Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/12] selftests/vsock: reuse logic for
vsock_test through wrapper functions
On Wed, Oct 29, 2025 at 04:58:05PM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 12:08:48PM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 11:01:36AM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 04:58:02PM +0000, Simon Horman wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 06:00:07PM -0700, Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > > > > From: Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@...a.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > Add wrapper functions vm_vsock_test() and host_vsock_test() to invoke
> > > > > the vsock_test binary. This encapsulates several items of repeat logic,
> > > > > such as waiting for the server to reach listening state and
> > > > > enabling/disabling the bash option pipefail to avoid pipe-style logging
> > > > > from hiding failures.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@...a.com>
> > > >
> > > > shellcheck has some (new) things to say about this patch too.
> > > > Could you take a look over them?
> > > >
> > > > ...
> > >
> >
> > It looks like the errors are SC2317 and SC2119, but are false-positives.
> > Invoking a program as a variable (e.g., "${VSOCK_TEST}") is tripping
> > SC2317 (command unreachable), and SC2119 is due to log_{guest,host}()
> > being passed zero arguments (logging its stdin instead).
>
> Sorry about that, I thought I saw something meaningful in there.
> I guess I was mistaken.
>
No problem at all, it brought my attention to shellcheck and the need
for exclusions, which I honestly did not know we used formally upstream.
Best,
Bobby
Powered by blists - more mailing lists