Re: 4.19: udpgso_bench_tx: setsockopt zerocopy: Unknown error 524

[Willem de Bruijn]

On Tue, Jun 18, 2019 at 6:44 PM David Miller <davem@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Willem de Bruijn <willemdebruijn.kernel@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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... :)

Yes, it's not ideal. Erring on the side of caution? Unlike pass, it is
a signal that an admin may or may not choose to act on. I run a
selected subset of tests from tools/testing that are all expected to
pass, so if one returns skip, I would want to take a closer look.