Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] selftests: rds: report missing RDMA prereqs as XFAIL

[Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>]

This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
---
selftests: rds: report missing RDMA prereqs as XFAIL

This commit changes the exit code and message tag for RDMA prerequisites in
the RDS selftests to report as an expected failure instead of a skip.

> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/rds/rds_run.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/rds/rds_run.sh
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/rds/rds_run.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/rds/rds_run.sh
> @@ -123,10 +123,10 @@ check_rdma_conf_enabled() {
>  		probe_module "$2"
>  		return
>  	fi
> -	echo "selftests: [SKIP] rdma transport requires $1 enabled"
> +	echo "selftests: [XFAIL] rdma transport requires $1 enabled"
>  	echo "To enable, run" \
>  	     "tools/testing/selftests/net/rds/config.sh -r and rebuild"
> -	exit 4
> +	exit 5

[Severity: High]
Is exit code 5 the correct value for an expected failure in the kselftest
framework?

Looking at the kselftest framework in tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
and ktap_helpers.sh, the expected failure code (KSFT_XFAIL) is defined as 2.

When runner.sh receives an exit code of 5, it does not match KSFT_XFAIL.
Instead, it falls through to the default case and calls ktap_test_fail,
which logs a hard test failure.

Could this actively fail the test in the continuous integration environments
rather than marking it as an expected failure?

[ ... ]