netdev - Re: [PATCHv3 net-next 3/3] tools: ynl: add YNL test framework

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: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aRXQIJMCLTaqIZLu@fedora>
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2025 12:33:36 +0000
From: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@...il.com>
To: Matthieu Baerts <matttbe@...nel.org>
Cc: Donald Hunter <donald.hunter@...il.com>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
	"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
	Eric Dumazet <edumazet@...gle.com>, Paolo Abeni <pabeni@...hat.com>,
	Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>, Jan Stancek <jstancek@...hat.com>,
	Asbjørn Sloth Tønnesen <ast@...erby.net>,
	Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@...ichev.me>,
	Ido Schimmel <idosch@...dia.com>,
	Guillaume Nault <gnault@...hat.com>,
	Sabrina Dubroca <sd@...asysnail.net>,
	Petr Machata <petrm@...dia.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCHv3 net-next 3/3] tools: ynl: add YNL test framework

On Thu, Nov 13, 2025 at 10:59:49AM +0100, Matthieu Baerts wrote:
> >> I know these new tests are not in the selftests, but maybe "safer" to
> >> keep the same exit code to avoid being misinterpreted?
> >>
> >>   KSFT_PASS=0
> >>   KSFT_FAIL=1
> >>   KSFT_XFAIL=2
> >>   KSFT_XPASS=3
> >>   KSFT_SKIP=4
> > 
> > Yes, that's why I ask about the return code. I also prefer use the same exit
> > code with selftest.
> 
> Should you then exit with rc=4 instead of 0 in case of SKIP?

Sure

> 
> >> If there is a need to know which tests have failed, why not using (K)TAP
> >> format for the output?
> > 
> > I feel it's too heavy to copy the (K)TAP format here. I would just using the
> > exit code unless Jakub ask to using the specific output format
> 
> OK, I thought it was just a question of changing your 'echo' from "PASS"
> and "FAIL" to "(not )ok ${COUNTER} (...)" + print the header and the
> number of tests. But sure, if this format is not needed, no need to bother.

Oh, this looks reasonable. I will try add a helper for the output.

Thanks
Hangbin