From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD85FC31E5E for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC31720873 for ; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 22:44:12 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730839AbfFRWoL (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:44:11 -0400 Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.9]:54632 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1730758AbfFRWoL (ORCPT ); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:44:11 -0400 Received: from localhost (unknown [198.134.98.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) (Authenticated sender: davem-davemloft) by shards.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 209DD12D69F76; Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:44:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 18:44:09 -0400 (EDT) Message-Id: <20190618.184409.2227845117139305004.davem@davemloft.net> To: willemdebruijn.kernel@gmail.com Cc: gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, naresh.kamboju@linaro.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, fklassen@appneta.com Subject: Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524 From: David Miller In-Reply-To: References: <20190618173906.GB3649@kroah.com> X-Mailer: Mew version 6.8 on Emacs 26.1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.5.12 (shards.monkeyblade.net [149.20.54.216]); Tue, 18 Jun 2019 15:44:10 -0700 (PDT) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org From: Willem de Bruijn Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 14:58:26 -0400 > I see that in similar such cases that use the test harness > (ksft_test_result_skip) the overall test returns success as long as > all individual cases return either success or skip. > > I think it's preferable to return KSFT_SKIP if any of the cases did so > (and none returned an error). I'll do that unless anyone objects. I guess this is a question of semantics. I mean, if you report skip at the top level does that mean that all sub tests were skipped? People may think so... :)