Re: [PATCH bpf-next 0/6] selftests/bpf: move sockopt tests under test_progs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Sep 06, 2019 at 08:18:08AM -0700, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> 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.

If the subtests are runnable and useful individually it's good to have
them as subtests.
I think in the above I misread them as a sequence of sub-checks that needs
to happen before actual test result.
Looking at test_sockopt.c I see that they're separate tests,
so yeah keep them.
No need to hide by default or extra flags.
Let me look at v1 and v2 again...




[Index of Archives]     [Linux Samsung SoC]     [Linux Rockchip SoC]     [Linux Actions SoC]     [Linux for Synopsys ARC Processors]     [Linux NFS]     [Linux NILFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]


  Powered by Linux