From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [170.10.129.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0BE272F8BEE for ; Wed, 17 Sep 2025 03:40:31 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758080434; cv=none; b=rSe4zx4RPbSV5I98EfzsusKrvpySzdjShvLKCQfLHA/K2QdEGwdVr4pqUgLQ73vJ+Z3ORK1UYasjC/YuZCO3KazxYzejxYhg8wwqb1fkXJPz1xR7SFH9UOikoaMrPy/BnPU45ctZoZjhiPMeijINp+4sd6J1OmewTMqSEg55nNc= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1758080434; c=relaxed/simple; bh=piyHsypl3GXPi7gLgRDu2bhAxZZutaGxhkD65yAKTno=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=DjKRqEuSNwJUC7ValeCtnEG4WUKyo5jzHDT6ZTgox3HTu6cmErWwSPG5j1ORvkP+CLpTuVghd2SmrXZxLbi8KjQcVAiZC9bXw36EX56aMmOvhPyzRSGSSAAsL130ins2uBKCrlRh3U4BWSvk+znIuLiSQdAqJAROkew2U53W4tI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b=LgerEsju; arc=none smtp.client-ip=170.10.129.124 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=quarantine dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=redhat.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=redhat.com header.i=@redhat.com header.b="LgerEsju" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1758080431; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=tNouETy1LKz/oc6u4FY58QTKf+3DfpDxE9rTMG3lvow=; b=LgerEsjur4Qtzbbx5Awk88RZiyIagjwKZLThd8fYkUBRq4yLzl2bE6K1zaqDnthZh4sPxN 2mtGxc6wgYugnBcfT23M8itXntT+PKqnxQNvF0e2IbzUC+ppGwxY0aJUwEA2Tv5kPN1RYs 5KNHgEAJe0Cg7z5T0kVSqhqqOFWjnbo= Received: from mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (ec2-54-186-198-63.us-west-2.compute.amazonaws.com [54.186.198.63]) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP with STARTTLS (version=TLSv1.3, cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) id us-mta-459-GoyFwYYQOMiBJ9K1CWKj7w-1; Tue, 16 Sep 2025 23:40:27 -0400 X-MC-Unique: GoyFwYYQOMiBJ9K1CWKj7w-1 X-Mimecast-MFC-AGG-ID: GoyFwYYQOMiBJ9K1CWKj7w_1758080426 Received: from mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com [10.30.177.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mx-prod-mc-04.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5CB1519560AE; Wed, 17 Sep 2025 03:40:26 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fedora (unknown [10.72.120.8]) by mx-prod-int-01.mail-002.prod.us-west-2.aws.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB263300018D; Wed, 17 Sep 2025 03:40:21 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2025 11:40:16 +0800 From: Ming Lei To: Uday Shankar Cc: Mohit Gupta , Caleb Sander Mateos , Shuah Khan , linux-block@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] selftests: ublk: fix behavior when fio is not installed Message-ID: References: <20250916-ublk_fio-v2-1-04852e6bf42a@purestorage.com> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-block@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250916-ublk_fio-v2-1-04852e6bf42a@purestorage.com> X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 3.4.1 on 10.30.177.4 On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 06:42:52PM -0600, Uday Shankar wrote: > Some ublk selftests have strange behavior when fio is not installed. > While most tests behave correctly (run if they don't need fio, or skip > if they need fio), the following tests have different behavior: > > - test_null_01, test_null_02, test_generic_01, test_generic_02, and > test_generic_12 try to run fio without checking if it exists first, > and fail on any failure of the fio command (including "fio command > not found"). So these tests fail when they should skip. > - test_stress_05 runs fio without checking if it exists first, but > doesn't fail on fio command failure. This test passes, but that pass > is misleading as the test doesn't do anything useful without fio > installed. So this test passes when it should skip. > > Fix these issues by adding _have_program fio checks to the top of all of > these tests. > > Signed-off-by: Uday Shankar > --- > Changes in v2: > - Also fix test_generic_01, test_generic_02, test_generic_12, which fail > on systems where bpftrace is installed but fio is not (Mohit Gupta) > - Link to v1: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20250916-ublk_fio-v1-1-8d522539eed7@purestorage.com Reviewed-by: Ming Lei Thanks, Ming