From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga09.intel.com (mga09.intel.com [134.134.136.24]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7A3AB6E135 for ; Tue, 2 Mar 2021 13:22:47 +0000 (UTC) Date: Tue, 2 Mar 2021 15:23:08 +0200 From: Petri Latvala Message-ID: References: <20210225083553.7540-1-petri.latvala@intel.com> <161468568208.13469.12406365697364305928@build.alporthouse.com> <161469026970.16094.600012892357124517@build.alporthouse.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <161469026970.16094.600012892357124517@build.alporthouse.com> Subject: Re: [igt-dev] [PATCH i-g-t] lib/kmod: Stop producing results at all for kernel selftests on taint List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: igt-dev-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "igt-dev" To: Chris Wilson Cc: igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org List-ID: On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 01:04:29PM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Petri Latvala (2021-03-02 12:39:35) > > On Tue, Mar 02, 2021 at 11:48:02AM +0000, Chris Wilson wrote: > > > Quoting Petri Latvala (2021-02-25 08:35:53) > > > > Instead of producing skips for the rest when one selftest taints the > > > > kernel, stop running them altogether. Having the skips produced yields > > > > no value and just makes future improvements (like correctly tagging > > > > tests that cause taints) harder. In effect, this gets us back to the > > > > old setup when tainting made igt_runner immediately kill the test and > > > > similarly made us not get spurious results for the rest of the > > > > selftests. > > > > > > Skip isn't spurious here. I don't see how this impacts tagging the > > > earlier tests. So the only question for me is whether SKIP or NOTRUN is > > > more applicable. And skip is far more informative when run by hand... > > > > When run by hand on an already tainted kernel, the first (specified) > > selftest still gets a skip and others don't get executed. > > > > The immediate value I'll be getting from this is my ongoing work on > > the ugly igt@runner@aborted pseudoresult to instead mark the last > > executed test as 'ABORT' result when igt_runner decides to abort the > > execution (due to a taint). If we have skips, I'd need to do some > > selftest-specific handling to not mark the last executed dynamic > > subtest, but the last non-skipping dynamic subtest. > > The problem does not seem to be intrinsic to igt_kselftests, as any > dynamic subtest that triggers a taint will then proceed to run the next > igt_dynamic which may pass, fail or skip. The runner may not have a > chance to check for a taint until the end of the subtest. It sounds like > a job for the igt_runner <-> igt channel. Would also require checking for taint mid-execution... Anyway best practices for dynamic subtests is to never skip, but instead not exist at all. I suppose I could instead mark every single dynamic subtest as abort when abort happens. -- Petri Latvala _______________________________________________ igt-dev mailing list igt-dev@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/igt-dev