On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:09 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:42:33 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 7:02 AM Jakub Kicinski <kuba@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:50:51 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote: > > > > This test will treat all non-zero return codes as failures, it will > > > > make the pmtu.sh test script being marked as FAILED when some > > > > sub-test got skipped. > > > > > > > > Improve the result processing by > > > > * Only mark the whole test script as SKIP when all of the > > > > sub-tests were skipped > > > > * If the sub-tests were either passed or skipped, the overall > > > > result will be PASS > > > > * If any of them has failed, the overall result will be FAIL > > > > * Treat other return codes (e.g. 127 for command not found) as FAIL > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Po-Hsu Lin <po-hsu.lin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Patch 1 looks like a cleanup while patch 2 is more of a fix, can we > > > separate the two and apply the former to -next and latter to 5.10? > > > They shouldn't conflict, right? > > > > > > > Hello Jakub, > > > > Yes the first patch is just changing return code to $ksft_skip, the > > real fix is the second one. However the second patch was based on the > > first one, if we want to apply them separately we might need to change > > this $ksft_skip handling part in the second patch. > > Ah, I misread the situation, ksft_skip is 4, not 2, so the patch is > more than just refactoring. > > > What should I do to deal with this? > > Resend the former for -next and rebase + resend the latter (plus the > > fix to remove case 1) for 5.10 without the former patch? > > Let's apply both of the patches to net-next if that's fine with you. > Indeed detangling them is may be more effort that it's worth. That would be great, but allow me to resend V2 to get rid of case 1 first. Thanks!
