On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 02:43:56PM +0200, Thomas Haller wrote: > On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 13:40 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 01:21:54PM +0200, Thomas Haller wrote: > > > On Tue, 2023-10-17 at 11:04 +0200, Pablo Neira Ayuso wrote: > > > > On Tue, Oct 17, 2023 at 10:49:07AM +0200, Thomas Haller wrote: > > > > > The "table_onoff" test can only pass with certain (recent) > > > > > kernels. > > > > > Conditionally exit with status 77, if "eval-exit-code" > > > > > determines > > > > > that > > > > > we don't have a suitable kernel version. > > > > > > > > > > In this case, we can find the fixes in: > > > > > > > > > > v6.6 : > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c9bd26513b3a11b3adb3c2ed8a31a01a87173ff1 > > > > > v6.5.6 : > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=5e5754e9e77ce400d70ff3c30fea466c8dfe9a9f > > > > > v6.1.56 : > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c4b0facd5c20ceae3d07018a3417f06302fa9cd1 > > > > > v5.15.135 : > > > > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=0dcc9b4097d860d9af52db5366a8755c13468d13 > > > > > > > > I am not sure it worth this level of tracking. > > > > > > > > Soon these patches will be in upstream stable and this extra > > > > shell > > > > code will be simply deadcode in little time. > > > > > > I am not concerned about dead code in old tests that keep passing. > > > The code was useful once, now the test passes. No need to revisit > > > them, > > > unless you see a real problem with them. > > > > > > If it would be only little time, the tests should wait. But how > > > much is > > > the right time? You are not waiting for your use-case, you are > > > holding > > > back to not to break the unknown use cases of others. > > > > > > IMO merging tests is good. The problem just needs a good solution. > > > > Apologies, I don't think this kind of hints is worth. > > > Which hint do you mean? > > Do you mean the commit message, or the > > echo "Command to re-awaken a dormant table did not fail. Lacking https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/commit/?id=c9bd26513b3a11b3adb3c2ed8a31a01a87173ff1 ?" > > The echo is really just an elaborate code-comment. But it also ends up > in "testout.log", which makes it better. > > > I don't mind rewording commit message or the echo statement (or even > dropping it entirely). But I find this information more useful than > not. But I still don't get the point on skipping this test in older kernels, this test tells you your kernel is buggy. Who is going to run this in older kernels? We only run these tests these days. Skipping a test that tells you that you kernel is buggy is misleading?
