On 10/13/22 19:10, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 10/13/22 11:01, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 13.10.22 18:54, Vlastimil Babka wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I've been trying the hmm_tests as of today's commit:
>>>
>>> a185a0995518 ("Merge tag 'linux-kselftest-kunit-6.1-rc1-2' ...)
>>>
>>> and run into several issues that seemed worth reporting.
>>>
>>> First, it seems the FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(hmm) in
>>> tools/testing/selftests/vm/hmm-tests.c
>>> using ASSERT_EQ(ret, 0); can run into an infinite loop of reporting the
>>> assertion failure. Dunno if it's a kselftests issue or it's a bug to
>>> use asserts in teardown. I hacked it up like this locally to proceed:
>>>
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/vm/hmm-tests.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/vm/hmm-tests.c
>>> @@ -154,6 +154,11 @@ FIXTURE_TEARDOWN(hmm)
>>> {
>>> int ret = close(self->fd);
>>> + if (ret != 0) {
>>> + fprintf(stderr, "close returned (%d) fd is (%d)\n", ret,self->fd);
>>> + exit(1);
>>> + }
>>> +
>>> ASSERT_EQ(ret, 0);
>>> self->fd = -1;
>>> }
>>>
>>> Next, there are some tests that fail (and thus also trigger the issue above)
>>>
>>> # RUN hmm.hmm_device_private.exclusive ...
>>> # hmm-tests.c:1702:exclusive:Expected ret (-16) == 0 (0)
>>> close returned (-1) fd is (3)
>>> # exclusive: Test failed at step #1
>>> # FAIL hmm.hmm_device_private.exclusive
>>> not ok 20 hmm.hmm_device_private.exclusive
>>> # RUN hmm.hmm_device_private.exclusive_mprotect ...
>>> # hmm-tests.c:1756:exclusive_mprotect:Expected ret (-16) == 0 (0)
>>> close returned (-1) fd is (3)
>>> # exclusive_mprotect: Test failed at step #1
>>> # FAIL hmm.hmm_device_private.exclusive_mprotect
>>> not ok 21 hmm.hmm_device_private.exclusive_mprotect
>>> # RUN hmm.hmm_device_private.exclusive_cow ...
>>> # hmm-tests.c:1809:exclusive_cow:Expected ret (-16) == 0 (0)
>>> close returned (-1) fd is (3)
>>> # exclusive_cow: Test failed at step #1
>>> # FAIL hmm.hmm_device_private.exclusive_cow
>>> not ok 22 hmm.hmm_device_private.exclusive_cow
>>>
>>>
>>
>> When did that test start failing? Was it still ok for 6.0?
Didn't test yet, will try, in case it's my system/config specific thing.
>>
>
> commit 4fe89d07dcc2804c8b562f6c7896a45643d34b2f (tag: v6.0, linux/master)
>
> # FAILED: 25 / 50 tests passed.
> # Totals: pass:25 fail:25 xfail:0 xpass:0 skip:0 error:0
>
> Looks good to me.
Hmm but there's 25 that failed? Or are those also misreported SKIPs?
> Possible change in 6.1 and we have to time fix them all. :)
>
> thanks,
> -- Shuah
