On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 02:36:18PM -0500, Luiz Capitulino wrote:
On 2025-12-20 23:00, Chunyu Hu wrote:
When the first test failed, and the hugetlb test passed, the result would be pass, but we expect a fail. Fix this issue by returning fail if either is not KSFT_PASS.
CC: Luiz Capitulino luizcap@redhat.com Signed-off-by: Chunyu Hu chuhu@redhat.com
tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c | 10 +++++++--- 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c index 02f290a69132..51401e081b20 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/va_high_addr_switch.c @@ -322,7 +322,7 @@ static int supported_arch(void) int main(int argc, char **argv) {
- int ret;
- int ret, hugetlb_ret = KSFT_PASS; if (!supported_arch()) return KSFT_SKIP;
@@ -331,6 +331,10 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) ret = run_test(testcases, sz_testcases); if (argc == 2 && !strcmp(argv[1], "--run-hugetlb"))
ret = run_test(hugetlb_testcases, sz_hugetlb_testcases);Maybe you could just have used:
ret |= run_test(hugetlb_testcases, sz_hugetlb_testcases);
Good point. I thought the result code is not encoded by bit, but for KSFT_PASS and KSFT_FAIL, and KSFT_SKIP, they are per bit.
85 #define KSFT_PASS 0 86 #define KSFT_FAIL 1 87 #define KSFT_XFAIL 2 88 #define KSFT_XPASS 3 89 #define KSFT_SKIP 4
@Andrew, do you think I need to send a v3 for using the simpified way? if so, send the whole series or the single patch?
But anyways, as this is just testing code:
Reviewed-by: Luiz Capitulino luizcap@redhat.com
- return ret;
hugetlb_ret = run_test(hugetlb_testcases, sz_hugetlb_testcases);- if (ret == KSFT_PASS && hugetlb_ret == KSFT_PASS)
return KSFT_PASS;- else
return KSFT_FAIL;