On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:39 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 01:27:14PM -0400, Willem de Bruijn wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 1:15 PM Greg KH <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > 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. > > > > I was not aware that kselftest had this feature. > > > > But it appears that exit code KSFT_SKIP (4) will achieve this. Okay, > > I'll send a patch and will keep that in mind for future tests. > > Wonderful, thanks for doing that! One complication: an exit code works for a single test, but here multiple test variants are run from a single shell script. I see that in similar such cases that use the test harness (ksft_test_result_skip) the overall test returns success as long as all individual cases return either success or skip. I think it's preferable to return KSFT_SKIP if any of the cases did so (and none returned an error). I'll do that unless anyone objects.
