Re: [PATCH net 1/2] selftests: udpgro: report error when receive failed

[Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>]

On 8/14/24 09:57, Hangbin Liu wrote:
> Currently, we only check the latest senders's exit code. If the receiver
> report failed, it is not recoreded. Fix it by checking the exit code
> of all the involved processes.
> 
> Before:
>    bad GRO lookup                          ok
>    multiple GRO socks                      ./udpgso_bench_rx: recv: bad packet len, got 1452, expected 14520
> 
>   ./udpgso_bench_rx: recv: bad packet len, got 1452, expected 14520
> 
>   failed
>   $ echo $?
>   0
> 
> After:
>    bad GRO lookup                          ok
>    multiple GRO socks                      ./udpgso_bench_rx: recv: bad packet len, got 1452, expected 14520
> 
>   ./udpgso_bench_rx: recv: bad packet len, got 1452, expected 14520
> 
>   failed
>   $ echo $?
>   1
> 
> Fixes: 3327a9c46352 ("selftests: add functionals test for UDP GRO")
> Suggested-by: Paolo Abeni <pabeni@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Hangbin Liu <liuhangbin@gmail.com>
> ---
>   tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro.sh | 41 ++++++++++++++++-----------
>   1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
> 
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro.sh
> index 11a1ebda564f..7e0164247b83 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/udpgro.sh
> @@ -49,14 +49,15 @@ run_one() {
>   
>   	cfg_veth
>   
> -	ip netns exec "${PEER_NS}" ./udpgso_bench_rx -C 1000 -R 10 ${rx_args} && \
> -		echo "ok" || \
> -		echo "failed" &
> +	ip netns exec "${PEER_NS}" ./udpgso_bench_rx -C 1000 -R 10 ${rx_args} &
> +	local PID1=$!
>   
>   	wait_local_port_listen ${PEER_NS} 8000 udp
>   	./udpgso_bench_tx ${tx_args}
> -	ret=$?
> -	wait $(jobs -p)
> +	check_err $?
> +	wait ${PID1}
> +	check_err $?
> +	[ "$ret" -eq 0 ] && echo "ok" || echo "failed"

I think that with the above, in case of a failure, every test after the 
failing one will should fail, regardless of the actual results, am I 
correct?

Thanks,

Paolo