Messages in this thread | | | From | Andrii Nakryiko <> | Date | Mon, 6 Jul 2020 15:17:57 -0700 | Subject | Re: [PATCH bpf-next V2 2/2] selftests/bpf: test_progs avoid minus shell exit codes |
| |
On Mon, Jul 6, 2020 at 10:00 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> wrote: > > There are a number of places in test_progs that use minus-1 as the argument > to exit(). This improper use as a process exit status is masked to be a > number between 0 and 255 as defined in man exit(3).
nit: I wouldn't call it improper use, as it's a well defined behavior (lower byte of returned integer).
> > This patch use two different positive exit codes instead, to allow a shell
typo: uses
> script to tell the two error cases apart. > > Fixes: fd27b1835e70 ("selftests/bpf: Reset process and thread affinity after each test/sub-test") > Fixes: 811d7e375d08 ("bpf: selftests: Restore netns after each test") > Signed-off-by: Jesper Dangaard Brouer <brouer@redhat.com> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c | 12 +++++++----- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > index e8f7cd5dbae4..50803b080593 100644 > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > @@ -12,7 +12,9 @@ > #include <string.h> > #include <execinfo.h> /* backtrace */ > > -#define EXIT_NO_TEST 2 > +#define EXIT_NO_TEST 2 > +#define EXIT_ERR_NETNS 3 > +#define EXIT_ERR_RESET_AFFINITY 4
Let's not overdo this with too granular error codes? All of those seem to be just a failure, is there any practical need to differentiate between NETNS vs RESET_AFFINITY failure?
I'd go with 3 values:
1 - at least one test failed 2 - no tests were selected 3 - "infra" (not a test-specific failure) error (like netns or affinity failed).
Thoughts?
[...]
| |