From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from smtp.kernel.org (aws-us-west-2-korg-mail-alma10-1.taild15c8.ts.net [100.103.45.18]) (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 5E3C5360EEA; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 02:24:51 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780367092; cv=none; b=B7DQMwhW73aZFtaGP3xSqj0tiOzLs3YAc9T8a3nhD6mbcSyO2oVPLHai+a3e5c+YmUtqXfMb5KXbzccWyXtB6Ygdrk3P6O26ksQMPKfpYdmhHq7wc7233iIJuOafs7SifPoXK0BpyCQuLipu4AayIOSJKTtDLEIUWtsvlJ+G6hw= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1780367092; c=relaxed/simple; bh=ClxTDzCpGqsuGuerbNHU0KLoCUlAZMdBd0D+jyY0JlA=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: MIME-Version; b=Fukb90RxUp7AxwQY0e0MOOxS5dI6kRvGsYbETkdYrCCAj2P1Ujf097Ge4UZTUdPTGfzOh7Q5Rr8c8YLE29SroqsZGH66PQUuzGfo9fQ45291Vyv2hw661ihofLj/shJHBd50yueLevi3zLT8zfl6jyHkDCTBT2TnHEe1cUX48mI= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b=j9F3R+wy; arc=none smtp.client-ip=100.103.45.18 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kernel.org header.i=@kernel.org header.b="j9F3R+wy" Received: by smtp.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id BBD591F00898; Tue, 2 Jun 2026 02:24:50 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kernel.org; s=k20260515; t=1780367091; bh=USZnTz6l1BNNL6RQ/Z/0kA4QgrNPvmVTEDWl7JMVB4M=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:References; b=j9F3R+wyYk/cIAkbJnM+ZWLLNIgmHSvA0V6aYVUpBPFFYhJv1zGqRmuo7Rno2ZA4U Vj+WRXJoAfV09t+ZvzSGFXwrTzmT5WeBMmIt0MisbE0levKFuRrHrwxtJMEYT60L75 Yuj8e378uL+Vjh/oeQTAYaZj/0+Y2mYxDlZq1oupIVZFLYVMs2pLu/WRqkzpgBhV8G QrjEQXKXx3CAeryA6dTrsskGnxN3wjX8ghXBHvx4x+0FFOEHDSCzn8WlubMaEyhhJh fxTQ2AL8iNhoQCxneQgDvI2NxWWUJ9/UEsnp129imkzJUUwtAENmZ5zi5cP00VY7Wb v9gjQWUGxDwMw== From: Jakub Kicinski To: achender@kernel.org Cc: Jakub Kicinski , netdev@vger.kernel.org, pabeni@redhat.com, edumazet@google.com, horms@kernel.org, linux-rdma@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, shuah@kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 4/4] selftests: rds: report missing RDMA prereqs as XFAIL Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2026 19:24:49 -0700 Message-ID: <20260602022449.1634587-1-kuba@kernel.org> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.54.0 In-Reply-To: <20260527023423.387792-5-achender@kernel.org> References: <20260527023423.387792-5-achender@kernel.org> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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? [ ... ]