On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:16 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:23:48 -0700 > Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:12 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer > > <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxx> > > > > My preference was shorter EXIT_ERR_SETUP, but it doesn't matter. > > I can just resend the patchset, if you prefer? Doesn't matter to me, you can keep it as is. > > -- > Best regards, > Jesper Dangaard Brouer > MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat > LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer >
