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

Jesper Dangaard Brouer
2020-07-08T18:17:00Z

On Tue, 7 Jul 2020 00:23:48 -0700
Andrii Nakryiko <andrii.nakryiko@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 12:12 AM Jesper Dangaard Brouer
> <brouer@redhat.com> 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@fb.com>
>
> My preference was shorter EXIT_ERR_SETUP, but it doesn't matter.

I can just resend the patchset, if you prefer?

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