On Thu, Feb 15, 2024 at 04:41:15PM -0800, Jakub Kicinski wrote: > First 3 patches rearrange kselftest_harness to use exit code > as an enum rather than separate passed/skip/xfail members. One thought I was having here while porting other stuff to use XFAIL was that in the strictest sense, XFAIL isn't like SKIP, which can be used to avoid running a test entirely. XFAIL is about the expected outcome, which means that if we're going to support XFAIL correctly, we need to distinguish when a test was marked XFAIL but it _didn't_ fail. The implicit expectation is that a test outcome should be "pass". If something is marked "xfail", we're saying a successful test is that it fails. If it _passes_ instead of failing, this is unexpected and should be reported as well. (i.e. an XPASS -- unexpected pass) I think if we mix intent with result code, we're going to lose the ability to make this distinction in the future. (Right now the harness doesn't do it either -- it treats XFAIL as a special SKIP.) -- Kees Cook
