Re: [PATCH bpf-next V3 0/2] BPF selftests test runner 'test_progs' use proper shell exit codes

[Andrii Nakryiko]

On Wed, Jul 8, 2020 at 11:16 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
<brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:23:48 -0700
> Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:12 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> > <brouer@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > >
> > > This patchset makes it easier to use test_progs from shell scripts, by using
> > > proper shell exit codes. The process's exit status should be a number
> > > between 0 and 255 as defined in man exit(3) else it will be masked to comply.
> > >
> > > Shell exit codes used by programs should be below 127. As 127 and above are
> > > used for indicating signals. E.g. 139 means 11=SIGSEGV $((139 & 127))=11.
> > > POSIX defines in man wait(3p) signal check if WIFSIGNALED(STATUS) and
> > > WTERMSIG(139)=11. (Hint: cmd 'kill -l' list signals and their numbers).
> > >
> > > Using Segmentation fault as an example, as these have happened before with
> > > different tests (that are part of test_progs). CI people writing these
> > > shell-scripts could pickup these hints and report them, if that makes sense.
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Jesper Dangaard Brouer (2):
> > >       selftests/bpf: test_progs use another shell exit on non-actions
> > >       selftests/bpf: test_progs avoid minus shell exit codes
> > >
> > >
> > >  tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c |   13 ++++++++-----
> > >  1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> >
> > For the series:
> >
> > Acked-by: Andrii Nakryiko <andriin@xxxxxx>
> >
> > My preference was shorter EXIT_ERR_SETUP, but it doesn't matter.
>
> I can just resend the patchset, if you prefer?

Doesn't matter to me, you can keep it as is.

>
> --
> Best regards,
>   Jesper Dangaard Brouer
>   MSc.CS, Principal Kernel Engineer at Red Hat
>   LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/brouer
>