[LTP] [PATCH V3 08/10] syscalls/move_mount: New tests

Viresh Kumar
2020-02-26T08:59:27Z

On 26-02-20, 09:53, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Viresh,
>
> > On 26-02-20, 08:47, Petr Vorel wrote:
> > > Your idea is correct, but IMHO it's not good to skip all the tests, which is
> > > done due
> > > tst_test.c:1051: BROK: Test 0 haven't reported results!
> > > if you use tst_res(TBROK ...).
>
> > I don't think that is the case. tst_res(TBROK, ...) shouldn't (and
> > isn't for me) result in skipping of tests.
> Correct, tst_res() itself doesn't exit the test. But the fact it uses TBROK
> without reporting any result previously leads to tst_brk from the library:
>
> tst_test.c:1036: BROK: Test haven't reported results!

Ahh, I missed this part then.

> > Right, but in my case I can't put all setup stuff in setup() callback
> > and some of the setup bits stay in run() callback as well.
> Sure. But as a result of it I'd personally use tst_res(TFAIL).
> But maybe I'm wrong and others will correct me.

FWIW, I am the least educated guy here in terms of LTP stuff :)

I just want to make sure I don't need to do it again and so wanted to
better understand TBROK vs TFAIL thing.

So the conclusion is that in the run() callback we should always use
TFAIL ?

--
viresh