On Fri, Oct 25, 2024 at 02:18:02PM +0200, Eric Auger wrote: > On 10/25/24 12:54, Mark Brown wrote: > > I'm not even sure that's a terrible fix, looking at the changelog I get > > the impression the test is deliberately looking to do problematic things > > with the goal of making sure that the kernel handles them appropriately. > > That's not interacting well with the KVM selftest framework's general > > assert early assert often approach but it's a reasonable thing to want > Can you elaborate on the "assert early assert often approach". What > shall this test rather do according to you? In general the KVM selftests are filled with asserts which just immediately cause the test to exit with a backtrace. That's certainly an approach that can be taken with testsuites, but it does make things very fagile. This means that if the test is deliberately doing something which is liable to cause errors and put the VM in a bad state then it seems relatively likely that some part of a partial cleanup will run into a spurious error caused by the earlier testing putting the VM in an error state. > I am OoO next week but I can have a look afterwards. On which machine is > it failing? It was failing on a wide range of arm64 machines, I think every one I test (which would track with the change being very generic).
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
