From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 09:53:03 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH V3 08/10] syscalls/move_mount: New tests In-Reply-To: <20200226082318.eq5ozhgg2myscpqt@vireshk-i7> References: <20200225135709.GC62318@gacrux.arch.suse.de> <20200226022758.ls35mblsetg4nk6f@vireshk-i7> <20200226074729.GA15207@dell5510> <20200226082318.eq5ozhgg2myscpqt@vireshk-i7> Message-ID: <20200226085303.GA30488@dell5510> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it 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! tst_brk(TBROK, "Test %i haven't reported results!", i); That's why I consider tst_res(TBROK problematic. This is a separate discussion, see the patch I sent today https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/1244781/ Kind regards, Petr > > tst_brk(TBROK) is used for setup, where you create some resource, which is then > > reused by all test runs, but this preparation fails. > 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. Kind regards, Petr