From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from outbound.st.icloud.com (p-east2-cluster2-host10-snip4-2.eps.apple.com [57.103.78.75]) (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 155021B6CE9 for ; Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:57:42 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=57.103.78.75 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768319864; cv=none; b=EW+19fYU2VQrEGpTFtYRbgF4dUbw6bOVz5VY30CI8C73Wbbh+OE86H46VicVvIZ5hkjm5BIlPDlBEut9GX8P4LhwrniMxa7oKsNJYtOGa7OBTrtqIgHtv1TaZX0X9S7g6CeG4ksgkMjjz71iKytwVO2VCh5ut5kvohW764xKQlY= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1768319864; c=relaxed/simple; bh=0vkdgA6r80mxKpfAZplIxC5l8+NyKcyQL7sxtbuQ5wg=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=f81pIWI0P6iIRKuO9T3bT4syRXwSv/gnC0ldZmXgJ50Gn2h3Y07tFXOq751xDrPK8krKqkczgoY1bJvnVH0acIHeWEtvFmyAs1ZtBmVtj2px8ykgMfobOeIwdw9AoHCBsuZ5LxPrgtaoNr01+zxEsif4jtwgSJm0vvPjfqO+fSA= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=y-koj.net; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=y-koj.net; dkim=fail (0-bit key) header.d=y-koj.net header.i=@y-koj.net header.b=SvxzNM+o reason="key not found in DNS"; arc=none smtp.client-ip=57.103.78.75 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=y-koj.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=y-koj.net Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=fail reason="key not found in DNS" (0-bit key) header.d=y-koj.net header.i=@y-koj.net header.b="SvxzNM+o" Received: from outbound.st.icloud.com (unknown [127.0.0.2]) by p00-icloudmta-asmtp-us-east-1a-10-percent-3 (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 193E51800295; Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:57:38 +0000 (UTC) Dkim-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=y-koj.net; s=sig1; bh=iDyf4DVmjcKyNW0ewJj9vMN4f3ffdtug7yHxKcn/nWI=; h=Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:MIME-Version:Content-Type:x-icloud-hme; b=SvxzNM+oWtPMtF2uKbra/P9zes1HfLC51jCRSpi5r9ebeYNJ0Ig8pWQOz7zaa8TDOAwcaCC+EGUC494Lz8UsCsaPrWq8mEH5sN+xJPEq2o/uqEEafQhEGoOjuPkB7I7ZVkBKT+vGuRpsqEJdH+XCSygCjXiL843mVNmhFRrAcwYXw/mwYOgUbjo+RXpP0AVBb18sLhByuuIROskjRvkuuo8jxc35rNRl5bZeAwaR6DAaKx45xV7Be4wJaCwrnGOEoeFulheK/nOQmXOOTS1DWrmMxuUi4AlqQGEDCMP/HnXs+/daMjXL3Qzg5H2IUXKsXUqjjVasVcB1F/x1VhORCQ== mail-alias-created-date: 1719758601013 Received: from desktop.y-koj.net (unknown [17.42.251.67]) by p00-icloudmta-asmtp-us-east-1a-10-percent-3 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2DBD318006DC; Tue, 13 Jan 2026 15:57:36 +0000 (UTC) Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2026 00:57:33 +0900 From: Yohei Kojima To: Markus Elfring Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, LKML , Andrew Lunn , "David S. Miller" , Eric Dumazet , Jakub Kicinski , Paolo Abeni , Simon Horman , Shuah Khan Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next v2 2/2] selftests: net: improve error handling in passive TFO test Message-ID: References: <24707c8133f7095c0e5a94afa69e75c3a80bf6e7.1768312014.git.yk@y-koj.net> <607a0338-5e84-4aaf-b705-18dcd4aca05f@web.de> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: netdev@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <607a0338-5e84-4aaf-b705-18dcd4aca05f@web.de> X-Authority-Info: v=2.4 cv=PN0COPqC c=1 sm=1 tr=0 ts=69666b74 cx=c_apl:c_apl_out:c_pps a=YrL12D//S6tul8v/L+6tKg==:117 a=YrL12D//S6tul8v/L+6tKg==:17 a=IkcTkHD0fZMA:10 a=vUbySO9Y5rIA:10 a=VkNPw1HP01LnGYTKEx00:22 a=uZvujYp8AAAA:8 a=nPUG_8v1aTBAjSS_qAYA:9 a=3ZKOabzyN94A:10 a=QEXdDO2ut3YA:10 a=-gmKWNR2uOgA:10 a=SLzB8X_8jTLwj6mN0q5r:22 X-Proofpoint-ORIG-GUID: 8P5KFWalA--lY3sIqN8O-ciaPhoMwZtx X-Proofpoint-GUID: 8P5KFWalA--lY3sIqN8O-ciaPhoMwZtx X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details-Enc: AW1haW4tMjYwMTEzMDEzMyBTYWx0ZWRfXzE9BXl7XQanw AF89VUuuXxtf7nkOrMnjxE+YcnZV2kwJlGoJibuuCqW1dHsJmbxQPOz/GM4j0UREGNncfLOgbKK E32K7dxbVJDFEmXDO3H0B8Q8wpyCKQOlsVG4+/IVzRZpN7z36jLnG9fI3niIv2h8wb0DG/eS3Bp +979Amo7PRkPdOy+n5+eSwN6yz8f1lJsSNMahV7pP+p/ahrjCzRNKSfSzAYlF2KDUVWc6rWu0eB Sbx30CNES+8TXjLMIjDnaNMc6+akP+hWzHLWF4EC1eVwy/fUHC8f/o3TSnBRBMa7lKApd8oPTr6 3BU4HO84suNlP1Y9vAN X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=baseguard engine=ICAP:2.0.293,Aquarius:18.0.1121,Hydra:6.1.9,FMLib:17.12.100.49 definitions=2026-01-13_03,2026-01-09_02,2025-10-01_01 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxscore=0 bulkscore=0 suspectscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1030 malwarescore=0 adultscore=0 mlxlogscore=854 phishscore=0 classifier=spam authscore=0 adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.22.0-2510240001 definitions=main-2601130133 X-JNJ: AAAAAAABEotqHbVajvSgoEhTB8ZHlQ066JYL27IyhwhN9FPZDXZjJxRxdH0qL/A0jLkIKAMUZRsx6/BAmsFPHR2F6RkV51rIAA7l5HqhtIhQoWucsNbCBCf8/HKj4xXW+6LwRhNZ7joY+8ihKD2mvPNEyZmkqzou0sRBH8ZU5B9gErHHDNWpJIHouX6NOpQrcJpk+Qp+CtDl1N7l5qJ4wmm93F48/7+z5OJRyKqbUPphircK6C51qicrN/Qxsz/6+kqLAYkbtpkysm6JZsGUTpodZTvo9IzDGKGwfrhAwGyNyenKUZ1pcelbkYPTAySipN/h713EP6IQNJ/tzjRGvBuozPeGNVe4ma5+P+WfjTSILevXQJS8ynYlFOXk6J2BykRtp73ruHU5GFeXxc1BU3wEsy83qRReJLZ1gGXHmn2JilS5m8P7PAbNAYHGteH39hk5wYxvYBpAIPGLb22nP2hsIcC3/qoK1hmlN8M22LKKkzkO5W+dRYLwylfVSdnxv318HmR8BKRzgYjTE8kXAKYSaEpD1p+46fojkmObUqp8ZuwXDIeqRgyhHJovJCJcZkM46S2hFN+s5LyLWxBcTBwJVzg2jsQCWMVpo6pdTKiVnP/4dGpVhoNiQI6QOC2vkduLNTulALfGSIDizEhFlTYP8I3SaCKeX9WDdS/FF/6tKUbw9d7J9KE8EFuh1CghX+006cJHxZTjhWGTYRRcC9RDaOoe36yP+aN18yw4ukjv2qMWtvcF71q4Ol1rHSS4HRYuv+QYJ6DG On Tue, Jan 13, 2026 at 03:48:11PM +0100, Markus Elfring wrote: > … > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/tfo.c > > @@ -82,8 +82,10 @@ static void run_server(void) > … > > if (read(connfd, buf, 64) < 0) > > - perror("read()"); > > - fprintf(outfile, "%d\n", opt); > > + error(1, errno, "read()"); > > + > > + if (fprintf(outfile, "%d\n", opt) < 0) > > + error(1, errno, "fprintf()"); > > > > fclose(outfile); > > close(connfd); > … > > Why was error detection omitted for close() calls here so far? Because I believe that checking the return value of fclose() would not provide additional value in this test case, which is focused on testing the behavior of passive TFO. I understand that fclose() could fail there, but considering the trade-off between test reliability and code complexity (which increases review and maintenance costs), I think checking the return value there does not provide benefits to justify the added complexity. In fact, as far as I can see, none of the existing tests in selftests/net check the fclose() return value. Thank you, Yohei > > https://pubs.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/9799919799/functions/fclose.html > > Regards, > Markus