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=-6.8 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no 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 33E1DC2D0A3 for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:37:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7E6D2078D for ; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:37:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1730846AbgKJBhJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2020 20:37:09 -0500 Received: from youngberry.canonical.com ([91.189.89.112]:42579 "EHLO youngberry.canonical.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727311AbgKJBhJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 9 Nov 2020 20:37:09 -0500 Received: from mail-lf1-f72.google.com ([209.85.167.72]) by youngberry.canonical.com with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86_2) (envelope-from ) id 1kcIao-0000r0-Lm for linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 01:37:07 +0000 Received: by mail-lf1-f72.google.com with SMTP id s10so1830993lfi.15 for ; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 17:37:06 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=xygyfviZhrqldJoh55lqm86ZBffK6xSKZWicSP9XRLw=; b=bHM/eUUO0a6xmRyFT40LXR9j/MmaR+WP45DmJBl31Tkwcue9uxwiOXnOkoqoL+MZdd Nq6k1XgB6H2zlzqJLIrnrsCG8zuHrtive57WoMXmu/YwPGz8LgAZ0CsRuZNme88xamI5 BFfDfXIz1PLlAsP5P2Mt3YV9XV8cfjjL6E+2LtR5qwMy8pUiDmyo4p6Rwg1DDOvmXdH1 sKMhXMzV9uhTMN1hbAH8l+bHtbhXNPE/4YypkgA3XbfZg4FfsTFT6/qUsfFwPtNQ7fdP Di1fqURb/uzsBuTeRxE8SnYi2XT27Gj5hcoJvv4x5MGN3qivP4YZe7mPABgngVF5MSa3 YCpg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Jytm8yq38IfOny0kE8+BMR3SbNWpXk56yyIyUIhn/lPD8yfiS ecZ1ZzFAs3g+/ZaeeUbFCgNmmreqhBbAS8kJnyT/yah7tVrT/N3g4syyBk4EUJw0DliAV8PIWi4 /TY+fZK5PtaY+FKBAlDk/d8rCYOThMrFiW3Aw6l/NrJd+c9iewSAWJMzk X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8346:: with SMTP id l6mr6581917ljh.132.1604972225989; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 17:37:05 -0800 (PST) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwD7ul4nbZVQiVfaxChsuU9NpBuXQIKlLhwaoMNAWMub6P1uHlGOMMx0ima4z8Y3LMt9V7R+6TVWgDs82IrhIo= X-Received: by 2002:a2e:8346:: with SMTP id l6mr6581908ljh.132.1604972225691; Mon, 09 Nov 2020 17:37:05 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20201105105051.64258-1-po-hsu.lin@canonical.com> <20201105105051.64258-3-po-hsu.lin@canonical.com> <20201107150200.509523e3@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> <20201109100911.28afc390@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> In-Reply-To: <20201109100911.28afc390@kicinski-fedora-pc1c0hjn.dhcp.thefacebook.com> From: Po-Hsu Lin Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 09:36:54 +0800 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: pmtu.sh: improve the test result processing To: Jakub Kicinski Cc: netdev@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, David Miller , Shuah Khan Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:09 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:42:33 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote: > > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 7:02 AM Jakub Kicinski wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:50:51 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote: > > > > This test will treat all non-zero return codes as failures, it will > > > > make the pmtu.sh test script being marked as FAILED when some > > > > sub-test got skipped. > > > > > > > > Improve the result processing by > > > > * Only mark the whole test script as SKIP when all of the > > > > sub-tests were skipped > > > > * If the sub-tests were either passed or skipped, the overall > > > > result will be PASS > > > > * If any of them has failed, the overall result will be FAIL > > > > * Treat other return codes (e.g. 127 for command not found) as FAIL > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Po-Hsu Lin > > > > > > Patch 1 looks like a cleanup while patch 2 is more of a fix, can we > > > separate the two and apply the former to -next and latter to 5.10? > > > They shouldn't conflict, right? > > > > > > > Hello Jakub, > > > > Yes the first patch is just changing return code to $ksft_skip, the > > real fix is the second one. However the second patch was based on the > > first one, if we want to apply them separately we might need to change > > this $ksft_skip handling part in the second patch. > > Ah, I misread the situation, ksft_skip is 4, not 2, so the patch is > more than just refactoring. > > > What should I do to deal with this? > > Resend the former for -next and rebase + resend the latter (plus the > > fix to remove case 1) for 5.10 without the former patch? > > Let's apply both of the patches to net-next if that's fine with you. > Indeed detangling them is may be more effort that it's worth. That would be great, but allow me to resend V2 to get rid of case 1 first. Thanks!