From: Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 19:15:16 +0200 > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 09:47:59AM -0700, David Miller wrote: >> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx> >> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:37:33 -0400 >> >> > Specific to the above test, I can add a check command testing >> > setsockopt SO_ZEROCOPY return value. AFAIK kselftest has no explicit >> > way to denote "skipped", so this would just return "pass". Sounds a >> > bit fragile, passing success when a feature is absent. >> >> Especially since the feature might be absent because the 'config' >> template forgot to include a necessary Kconfig option. > > That is what the "skip" response is for, don't return "pass" if the > feature just isn't present. That lets people run tests on systems > without the config option enabled as you say, or on systems without the > needed userspace tools present. Ok I see how skip works, thanks for explaining. It would just be nice if it could work in a way such that we could distinguish "too old kernel for feature" from "missing Kconfig symbol in selftest config template". :-)
