On 09/06, Andrii Nakryiko wrote: > On Wed, Sep 4, 2019 at 4:03 PM Alexei Starovoitov > <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2019 at 09:25:03AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote: > > > Now that test_progs is shaping into more generic test framework, > > > let's convert sockopt tests to it. This requires adding > > > a helper to create and join a cgroup first (test__join_cgroup). > > > Since we already hijack stdout/stderr that shouldn't be > > > a problem (cgroup helpers log to stderr). > > > > > > The rest of the patches just move sockopt tests files under prog_tests/ > > > and do the required small adjustments. > > > > Looks good. Thank you for working on it. > > Could you de-verbose setsockopt test a bit? > > #23/32 setsockopt: deny write ctx->retval:OK > > #23/33 setsockopt: deny read ctx->retval:OK > > #23/34 setsockopt: deny writing to ctx->optval:OK > > #23/35 setsockopt: deny writing to ctx->optval_end:OK > > #23/36 setsockopt: allow IP_TOS <= 128:OK > > #23/37 setsockopt: deny IP_TOS > 128:OK > > 37 subtests is a bit too much spam. > > If we merged test_btf into test_progs, we'd have >150 subtests, which > would be pretty verbose as well. But the benefit of subtest is that > you can run just that sub-test and debug/verify just it, without all > the rest stuff. > > So I'm wondering, if too many lines of default output is the only > problem, should we just not output per-subtest line by default? Ack, we can output per-subtest line if it fails so it's easy to re-run; otherwise, hiding by default sounds good. I'll prepare a v3 sometime today; Alexei, let us know if you disagree.
