Re: [PATCH v2 4/5] selftests/mm: va_high_addr_switch return fail when either test failed

[Chunyu Hu <chuhu@redhat.com>]

On Mon, Dec 22, 2025 at 06:56:18PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Dec 2025 10:46:18 +0800 Chunyu Hu <chuhu@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > > >   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?
> 
> Leave it as it is?  This thing isn't a bitfield, so using |= happens to
> work thanks to good luck.

It works for me. Thanks.

>