Hi Mark, On 10/25/24 14:59, Mark Brown wrote: > 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. OK I better understand now. Thank you for the clarification. > >> 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). Yes I can reproduce on my end. Thanks Eric
