From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-1.web.codeaurora.org [10.30.226.201]) (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 ECC70326D75; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 18:35:23 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769538924; cv=none; b=r1hZLrlDGi93GxTINWbYNZMHoKYCFjMwHgIYTNAwzgh21F2G9uGhZGGBZ3Ap9r9DhIlAzvMX9+bEQTXsfk9j2RcsxGKjqDgc1KQO6gZD4ooDt0hBuAkCiuHqhApoSnqFUS8+p9+X9l89fa1A2auc0H8/eaMZG+fgRNjDctMJgV4= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1769538924; c=relaxed/simple; bh=DuLcxYcjzR2xmHAy5YE2AVPVcbMvwLcyMqT6hFaDYYY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:Message-ID: MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=Kdu+fJRd28YX7NZZKZvEBbNMJBIsFLsqkvm7Bb7zAlGnemRx0xhMgPAm+s0I8sef7cpsoVFVDmPTCBGRlVhCinaYhDwJ4Q0r4VKl9l31MQARXOJ6Ue6HbXJpT/HHJMvqQRfQ4ePodwzAY/1sm/Ev8aKNXYaiQAAEeQTeIzGeXUQ= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=I7NqDEs8; arc=none smtp.client-ip=10.30.226.201 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="I7NqDEs8" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B092DC116C6; Tue, 27 Jan 2026 18:35:22 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=k20201202; t=1769538923; bh=DuLcxYcjzR2xmHAy5YE2AVPVcbMvwLcyMqT6hFaDYYY=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:Date:From; b=I7NqDEs852BcgLp3PRvtYE6dYOsMHF2ftnJOIAEmA2Txo6C22mXTTxpHdDFVFRGwD hmnlphbGN5lhzmxoGXTBJol3P3e7zcsA7G6GW1tRgEjRwUxuOGO8UP/ChPJp6M9fud 1xRa7bZQ+0LvZwhus08M2OQh0eect8l4XDiCxjmXCE5/Eq+i+d9fhEOGnb31hNLuCe SKMW4N+lJ1GqW45hBLeZnsRhc186if5lHxjIRymbrIX0p9S7R1g2vJbseKzpSdAMkB F2FocoRgyxSMMdKoZCitqIs0hf2KDEQsmW8VDWYEWh1eYjG630Vvd6z1ayG7jicRWR khK6Iyvp7kgsQ== From: Thomas Gleixner To: Yuwen Chen , bigeasy@linutronix.de, wakel@google.com Cc: andrealmeid@igalia.com, colin.i.king@gmail.com, dave@stgolabs.net, dvhart@infradead.org, edliaw@google.com, justinstitt@google.com, kernel-team@android.com, licayy@foxmail.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, luto@mit.edu, mingo@redhat.com, morbo@google.com, nathan@kernel.org, ndesaulniers@google.com, peterz@infradead.org, shuah@kernel.org, usama.anjum@collabora.com, Yuwen Chen Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/futex: fix incorrect result reporting of futex_requeue test item In-Reply-To: References: Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2026 19:35:19 +0100 Message-ID: <871pjac3a0.ffs@tglx> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain On Tue, Jan 27 2026 at 15:37, Yuwen Chen wrote: > When using the TEST_HARNESS_MAIN macro definition to declare the main > function, you need to use the EXPECT_ and ASSERT_ series of functions in > conjunction. Otherwise, even if a test item fails, the test will still > return a success result. > > When adding a delay in waiterfn to artificially create an incorrect test > result, the test item has actually failed. However, the output still > indicates that the test has passed: This is an actual fix and wants to go _before_ adding hacks to solve the my system is too busy to start a thread in 10 seconds "problem". Thanks, tglx