[RFC][PATCH 1/2] kselftests: timers: freq-step: Define ADJ_SETOFFSET if device has older kernel headers

[RFC][PATCH 1/2] kselftests: timers: freq-step: Define ADJ_SETOFFSET if device has older kernel headers

[John Stultz]

On some systems, the kernel headers haven't been updated to include
ADJ_SETOFFSET, so define it in the test if needed.

Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/timers/freq-step.c | 4 ++++
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/freq-step.c b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/freq-step.c
index 22312eb..f0d1323 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/freq-step.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/freq-step.c
@@ -33,6 +33,10 @@
 #define MAX_FREQ_ERROR 10e-6
 #define MAX_STDDEV 1000e-9
 
+#ifndef ADJ_SETOFFSET
+  #define ADJ_SETOFFSET 0x0100
+#endif
+
 struct sample {
 	double offset;
 	double time;
-- 
2.7.4

[RFC][PATCH 2/2] selftests: timers: freq-step: Fix build warning

[John Stultz]

Fixes the following build warning:
freq-step.c: In function ‘main’:
freq-step.c:271:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
 }
 ^

By returning zero at the end of main.

Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>
Cc: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@codeaurora.org>
Cc: Miroslav Lichvar <mlichvar@redhat.com>
Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org
Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org>
---
 tools/testing/selftests/timers/freq-step.c | 2 ++
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/freq-step.c b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/freq-step.c
index f0d1323..51fcf7c 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/freq-step.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/freq-step.c
@@ -268,4 +268,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
 		ksft_exit_fail();
 
 	ksft_exit_pass();
+
+	return 0;
 }
-- 
2.7.4

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] selftests: timers: freq-step: Fix build warning

[Miroslav Lichvar]

On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 02:01:36PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
> Fixes the following build warning:
> freq-step.c: In function ‘main’:
> freq-step.c:271:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]

> @@ -268,4 +268,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>  		ksft_exit_fail();
>  
>  	ksft_exit_pass();
> +
> +	return 0;
>  }

It seems most tests use "return ksft_exit_pass();". Would that be
preferred over separate return? I don't have a preference.

Both patches in this set look good to me.

Thanks,

-- 
Miroslav Lichvar

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] selftests: timers: freq-step: Fix build warning

[Shuah Khan]

Hi John,

On 08/15/2017 06:11 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 02:01:36PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>> Fixes the following build warning:
>> freq-step.c: In function ‘main’:
>> freq-step.c:271:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
> 
>> @@ -268,4 +268,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>  		ksft_exit_fail();

This needs to be changes as well to return ksft_exit_fail();
>>  
>>  	ksft_exit_pass();
>> +
>> +	return 0;
>>  }
> 
> It seems most tests use "return ksft_exit_pass();". Would that be
> preferred over separate return? I don't have a preference.

Let's go with "return ksft_exit_pass();" 
> 
> Both patches in this set look good to me.
> 
> Thanks,
> 

thanks,
-- Shuah

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] selftests: timers: freq-step: Fix build warning

[John Stultz]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
> Hi John,
>
> On 08/15/2017 06:11 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 02:01:36PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>> Fixes the following build warning:
>>> freq-step.c: In function ‘main’:
>>> freq-step.c:271:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
>>
>>> @@ -268,4 +268,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>              ksft_exit_fail();
>
> This needs to be changes as well to return ksft_exit_fail();
>>>
>>>      ksft_exit_pass();
>>> +
>>> +    return 0;
>>>  }
>>
>> It seems most tests use "return ksft_exit_pass();". Would that be
>> preferred over separate return? I don't have a preference.
>
> Let's go with "return ksft_exit_pass();"

Thanks for the review, I've made both changes and I'll send these out
shortly with the rest of my 4.14 focused queue.

thanks
-john

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] selftests: timers: freq-step: Fix build warning

[John Stultz]

On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>> Hi John,
>>
>> On 08/15/2017 06:11 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 02:01:36PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>>> Fixes the following build warning:
>>>> freq-step.c: In function ‘main’:
>>>> freq-step.c:271:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
>>>
>>>> @@ -268,4 +268,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>              ksft_exit_fail();
>>
>> This needs to be changes as well to return ksft_exit_fail();
>>>>
>>>>      ksft_exit_pass();
>>>> +
>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>  }
>>>
>>> It seems most tests use "return ksft_exit_pass();". Would that be
>>> preferred over separate return? I don't have a preference.
>>
>> Let's go with "return ksft_exit_pass();"
>
> Thanks for the review, I've made both changes and I'll send these out
> shortly with the rest of my 4.14 focused queue.

Shuah,
  One more question here. I'm noticing that running "make
run_destructive_tests" in the timers dir, the freq-step test returns
ksft_exit_skip, which results in the test returning an exit code of 4,
which causes make to think it failed, halting the testing.

I'm guessing there is some extra logic for how to properly run
extended tests such that the various error codes are handled and a
skip doesn't result in the test stopping?

Any suggestions/pointers?

thanks
-john

Re: [RFC][PATCH 2/2] selftests: timers: freq-step: Fix build warning

[Shuah Khan]

On 08/16/2017 09:31 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:10 PM, John Stultz <john.stultz@linaro.org> wrote:
>> On Wed, Aug 16, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> wrote:
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> On 08/15/2017 06:11 AM, Miroslav Lichvar wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Aug 14, 2017 at 02:01:36PM -0700, John Stultz wrote:
>>>>> Fixes the following build warning:
>>>>> freq-step.c: In function ‘main’:
>>>>> freq-step.c:271:1: warning: control reaches end of non-void function [-Wreturn-type]
>>>>
>>>>> @@ -268,4 +268,6 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>>              ksft_exit_fail();
>>>
>>> This needs to be changes as well to return ksft_exit_fail();
>>>>>
>>>>>      ksft_exit_pass();
>>>>> +
>>>>> +    return 0;
>>>>>  }
>>>>
>>>> It seems most tests use "return ksft_exit_pass();". Would that be
>>>> preferred over separate return? I don't have a preference.
>>>
>>> Let's go with "return ksft_exit_pass();"
>>
>> Thanks for the review, I've made both changes and I'll send these out
>> shortly with the rest of my 4.14 focused queue.
> 
> Shuah,
>   One more question here. I'm noticing that running "make
> run_destructive_tests" in the timers dir, the freq-step test returns
> ksft_exit_skip, which results in the test returning an exit code of 4,
> which causes make to think it failed, halting the testing.

I think exit code 4 might not be good option. It could be tripping the
make target rules.

> 
> I'm guessing there is some extra logic for how to properly run
> extended tests such that the various error codes are handled and a
> skip doesn't result in the test stopping?
> 
> Any suggestions/pointers?
> 

Skip is really a case of not being able to run the test and it might not
be necessary to differentiate SKIP vs. PASS. I think we can just get rid 
of EXIT_SKIP and use EXIT_PASS. I would rather do that than adding handling
for exit code 4.

I can get that change in for 4.14-rc1 if this can wait or I will try to get
that into 4.13-rc7 possibly.

Also just FYI - I am going to send out patch series for timers test conversion
to TAP13 tomorrow.

thanks,
-- Shuah