lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2023]   [Aug]   [17]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH 3/3] selftests: cachestat: test for cachestat availability
From
On 8/17/23 08:47, Andre Przywara wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2023 11:11:49 -0600
> Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 8/15/23 09:56, Andre Przywara wrote:
>>> As cachestat is a new syscall, it won't be available on older kernels,
>>> for instance those running on a build machine. In this case, a run
>>> reports all tests as "not ok" at the moment.
>>>
>>> Test for the cachestat syscall availability first, before doing further
>>> tests, and bail out early with a TAP SKIP comment.
>>>
>>> This also uses the opportunity to add the proper TAP headers, and add
>>> one check for the syscall error handling (illegal file descriptor).
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andre Przywara <andre.przywara@arm.com>
>>> ---
>>> .../selftests/cachestat/test_cachestat.c | 22 ++++++++++++++++++-
>>> 1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cachestat/test_cachestat.c b/tools/testing/selftests/cachestat/test_cachestat.c
>>> index a5a4ac8dcb76c..77620e7ecf562 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cachestat/test_cachestat.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cachestat/test_cachestat.c
>>> @@ -15,6 +15,8 @@
>>>
>>> #include "../kselftest.h"
>>>
>>> +#define NR_TESTS 8
>>> +
>>> static const char * const dev_files[] = {
>>> "/dev/zero", "/dev/null", "/dev/urandom",
>>> "/proc/version", "/proc"
>>> @@ -235,7 +237,25 @@ bool test_cachestat_shmem(void)
>>>
>>> int main(void)
>>> {
>>> - int ret = 0;
>>> + int ret;
>>> +
>>> + ksft_print_header();
>>> +
>>> + ret = syscall(__NR_cachestat, -1, NULL, NULL, 0);
>>> + if (ret == -1 && errno == ENOSYS) {
>>> + printf("1..0 # Skipped: cachestat syscall not available\n");
>>> + return KSFT_SKIP;
>> What happens when other errors besides ENOSYS? The test shouldn't
>> continue.
>
> -1 is an illegal file descriptor, and this is checked below (still using
> the same ret and errno), but reported using the normal framework.
> This check above is done early, before we even announce the plan, so that
> we can skip *all* of the tests, since they don't make any sense when the
> syscall is not available at all.
>
> Does that make sense?
>

Yup. I will apply this for Linux 6.6-rc1. You will get patchbot notification
shortly.

thanks,
-- Shuah

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2023-08-17 20:05    [W:0.039 / U:0.548 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site