The pmtu.sh test script treats all non-zero return code as a failure,
thus it will be marked as FAILED when some sub-test got skipped.
This patchset will:
1. Use the kselftest framework skip code $ksft_skip to replace the
hardcoded SKIP return code.
2. Improve the result processing, the test will be marked as PASSED
if nothing goes wrong and not all the tests were skipped.
Po-Hsu Lin (2):
selftests: pmtu.sh: use $ksft_skip for skipped return code
selftests: pmtu.sh: improve the test result processing
tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh | 83 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------
1 file changed, 50 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-)
--
2.7.4
This test will treat all non-zero return codes as failures, it will
make the pmtu.sh test script being marked as FAILED when some
sub-test got skipped.
Improve the result processing by
* Only mark the whole test script as SKIP when all of the
sub-tests were skipped
* If the sub-tests were either passed or skipped, the overall
result will be PASS
* If any of them has failed, the overall result will be FAIL
* Treat other return codes (e.g. 127 for command not found) as FAIL
Signed-off-by: Po-Hsu Lin <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh | 19 ++++++++++++++++++-
1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
index fb53987..5c86fb1 100755
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
@@ -1652,7 +1652,23 @@ run_test() {
return $ret
)
ret=$?
- [ $ret -ne 0 ] && exitcode=1
+ case $ret in
+ 0)
+ all_skipped=false
+ [ $exitcode=$ksft_skip ] && exitcode=0
+ ;;
+ 1)
+ all_skipped=false
+ exitcode=1
+ ;;
+ $ksft_skip)
+ [ $all_skipped = true ] && exitcode=$ksft_skip
+ ;;
+ *)
+ all_skipped=false
+ exitcode=1
+ ;;
+ esac
return $ret
}
@@ -1786,6 +1802,7 @@ usage() {
#
exitcode=0
desc=0
+all_skipped=true
while getopts :ptv o
do
--
2.7.4
This test uses return code 2 as a hard-coded skipped state, let's use
the kselftest framework skip code variable $ksft_skip instead to make
it more readable and easier to maintain.
Signed-off-by: Po-Hsu Lin <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh | 64 ++++++++++++++++++-------------------
1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
index 6bbf69a..fb53987 100755
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
@@ -355,7 +355,7 @@ setup_fou_or_gue() {
encap="${3}"
if [ "${outer}" = "4" ]; then
- modprobe fou || return 2
+ modprobe fou || return $ksft_skip
a_addr="${prefix4}.${a_r1}.1"
b_addr="${prefix4}.${b_r1}.1"
if [ "${inner}" = "4" ]; then
@@ -366,7 +366,7 @@ setup_fou_or_gue() {
ipproto="41"
fi
else
- modprobe fou6 || return 2
+ modprobe fou6 || return $ksft_skip
a_addr="${prefix6}:${a_r1}::1"
b_addr="${prefix6}:${b_r1}::1"
if [ "${inner}" = "4" ]; then
@@ -380,8 +380,8 @@ setup_fou_or_gue() {
fi
fi
- run_cmd ${ns_a} ip fou add port 5555 ipproto ${ipproto} || return 2
- run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link add ${encap}_a type ${type} ${mode} local ${a_addr} remote ${b_addr} encap ${encap} encap-sport auto encap-dport 5556 || return 2
+ run_cmd ${ns_a} ip fou add port 5555 ipproto ${ipproto} || return $ksft_skip
+ run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link add ${encap}_a type ${type} ${mode} local ${a_addr} remote ${b_addr} encap ${encap} encap-sport auto encap-dport 5556 || return $ksft_skip
run_cmd ${ns_b} ip fou add port 5556 ipproto ${ipproto}
run_cmd ${ns_b} ip link add ${encap}_b type ${type} ${mode} local ${b_addr} remote ${a_addr} encap ${encap} encap-sport auto encap-dport 5555
@@ -455,7 +455,7 @@ setup_ipvX_over_ipvY() {
fi
fi
- run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link add ip_a type ${type} local ${a_addr} remote ${b_addr} mode ${mode} || return 2
+ run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link add ip_a type ${type} local ${a_addr} remote ${b_addr} mode ${mode} || return $ksft_skip
run_cmd ${ns_b} ip link add ip_b type ${type} local ${b_addr} remote ${a_addr} mode ${mode}
run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link set ip_a up
@@ -713,7 +713,7 @@ setup_routing() {
}
setup_bridge() {
- run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link add br0 type bridge || return 2
+ run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link add br0 type bridge || return $ksft_skip
run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link set br0 up
run_cmd ${ns_c} ip link add veth_C-A type veth peer name veth_A-C
@@ -765,7 +765,7 @@ setup_ovs_vxlan6() {
}
setup_ovs_bridge() {
- run_cmd ovs-vsctl add-br ovs_br0 || return 2
+ run_cmd ovs-vsctl add-br ovs_br0 || return $ksft_skip
run_cmd ip link set ovs_br0 up
run_cmd ${ns_c} ip link add veth_C-A type veth peer name veth_A-C
@@ -887,7 +887,7 @@ check_pmtu_value() {
test_pmtu_ipvX() {
family=${1}
- setup namespaces routing || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing || return $ksft_skip
trace "${ns_a}" veth_A-R1 "${ns_r1}" veth_R1-A \
"${ns_r1}" veth_R1-B "${ns_b}" veth_B-R1 \
"${ns_a}" veth_A-R2 "${ns_r2}" veth_R2-A \
@@ -985,11 +985,11 @@ test_pmtu_ipvX_over_vxlanY_or_geneveY_exception() {
ll_mtu=4000
if [ ${outer_family} -eq 4 ]; then
- setup namespaces routing ${type}4 || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing ${type}4 || return $ksft_skip
# IPv4 header UDP header VXLAN/GENEVE header Ethernet header
exp_mtu=$((${ll_mtu} - 20 - 8 - 8 - 14))
else
- setup namespaces routing ${type}6 || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing ${type}6 || return $ksft_skip
# IPv6 header UDP header VXLAN/GENEVE header Ethernet header
exp_mtu=$((${ll_mtu} - 40 - 8 - 8 - 14))
fi
@@ -1060,11 +1060,11 @@ test_pmtu_ipvX_over_bridged_vxlanY_or_geneveY_exception() {
ll_mtu=4000
if [ ${outer_family} -eq 4 ]; then
- setup namespaces routing bridge bridged_${type}4 || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing bridge bridged_${type}4 || return $ksft_skip
# IPv4 header UDP header VXLAN/GENEVE header Ethernet header
exp_mtu=$((${ll_mtu} - 20 - 8 - 8 - 14))
else
- setup namespaces routing bridge bridged_${type}6 || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing bridge bridged_${type}6 || return $ksft_skip
# IPv6 header UDP header VXLAN/GENEVE header Ethernet header
exp_mtu=$((${ll_mtu} - 40 - 8 - 8 - 14))
fi
@@ -1144,11 +1144,11 @@ test_pmtu_ipvX_over_ovs_vxlanY_or_geneveY_exception() {
ll_mtu=4000
if [ ${outer_family} -eq 4 ]; then
- setup namespaces routing ovs_bridge ovs_${type}4 || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing ovs_bridge ovs_${type}4 || return $ksft_skip
# IPv4 header UDP header VXLAN/GENEVE header Ethernet header
exp_mtu=$((${ll_mtu} - 20 - 8 - 8 - 14))
else
- setup namespaces routing ovs_bridge ovs_${type}6 || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing ovs_bridge ovs_${type}6 || return $ksft_skip
# IPv6 header UDP header VXLAN/GENEVE header Ethernet header
exp_mtu=$((${ll_mtu} - 40 - 8 - 8 - 14))
fi
@@ -1230,7 +1230,7 @@ test_pmtu_ipvX_over_fouY_or_gueY() {
encap=${3}
ll_mtu=4000
- setup namespaces routing ${encap}${outer_family}${inner_family} || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing ${encap}${outer_family}${inner_family} || return $ksft_skip
trace "${ns_a}" ${encap}_a "${ns_b}" ${encap}_b \
"${ns_a}" veth_A-R1 "${ns_r1}" veth_R1-A \
"${ns_b}" veth_B-R1 "${ns_r1}" veth_R1-B
@@ -1309,7 +1309,7 @@ test_pmtu_ipvX_over_ipvY_exception() {
outer=${2}
ll_mtu=4000
- setup namespaces routing ip${inner}ip${outer} || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing ip${inner}ip${outer} || return $ksft_skip
trace "${ns_a}" ip_a "${ns_b}" ip_b \
"${ns_a}" veth_A-R1 "${ns_r1}" veth_R1-A \
@@ -1363,7 +1363,7 @@ test_pmtu_ipv6_ipv6_exception() {
}
test_pmtu_vti4_exception() {
- setup namespaces veth vti4 xfrm4 || return 2
+ setup namespaces veth vti4 xfrm4 || return $ksft_skip
trace "${ns_a}" veth_a "${ns_b}" veth_b \
"${ns_a}" vti4_a "${ns_b}" vti4_b
@@ -1393,7 +1393,7 @@ test_pmtu_vti4_exception() {
}
test_pmtu_vti6_exception() {
- setup namespaces veth vti6 xfrm6 || return 2
+ setup namespaces veth vti6 xfrm6 || return $ksft_skip
trace "${ns_a}" veth_a "${ns_b}" veth_b \
"${ns_a}" vti6_a "${ns_b}" vti6_b
fail=0
@@ -1423,7 +1423,7 @@ test_pmtu_vti6_exception() {
}
test_pmtu_vti4_default_mtu() {
- setup namespaces veth vti4 || return 2
+ setup namespaces veth vti4 || return $ksft_skip
# Check that MTU of vti device is MTU of veth minus IPv4 header length
veth_mtu="$(link_get_mtu "${ns_a}" veth_a)"
@@ -1435,7 +1435,7 @@ test_pmtu_vti4_default_mtu() {
}
test_pmtu_vti6_default_mtu() {
- setup namespaces veth vti6 || return 2
+ setup namespaces veth vti6 || return $ksft_skip
# Check that MTU of vti device is MTU of veth minus IPv6 header length
veth_mtu="$(link_get_mtu "${ns_a}" veth_a)"
@@ -1447,10 +1447,10 @@ test_pmtu_vti6_default_mtu() {
}
test_pmtu_vti4_link_add_mtu() {
- setup namespaces || return 2
+ setup namespaces || return $ksft_skip
run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link add vti4_a type vti local ${veth4_a_addr} remote ${veth4_b_addr} key 10
- [ $? -ne 0 ] && err " vti not supported" && return 2
+ [ $? -ne 0 ] && err " vti not supported" && return $ksft_skip
run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link del vti4_a
fail=0
@@ -1485,10 +1485,10 @@ test_pmtu_vti4_link_add_mtu() {
}
test_pmtu_vti6_link_add_mtu() {
- setup namespaces || return 2
+ setup namespaces || return $ksft_skip
run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link add vti6_a type vti6 local ${veth6_a_addr} remote ${veth6_b_addr} key 10
- [ $? -ne 0 ] && err " vti6 not supported" && return 2
+ [ $? -ne 0 ] && err " vti6 not supported" && return $ksft_skip
run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link del vti6_a
fail=0
@@ -1523,10 +1523,10 @@ test_pmtu_vti6_link_add_mtu() {
}
test_pmtu_vti6_link_change_mtu() {
- setup namespaces || return 2
+ setup namespaces || return $ksft_skip
run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link add dummy0 mtu 1500 type dummy
- [ $? -ne 0 ] && err " dummy not supported" && return 2
+ [ $? -ne 0 ] && err " dummy not supported" && return $ksft_skip
run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link add dummy1 mtu 3000 type dummy
run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link set dummy0 up
run_cmd ${ns_a} ip link set dummy1 up
@@ -1579,10 +1579,10 @@ test_cleanup_vxlanX_exception() {
encap="vxlan"
ll_mtu=4000
- check_command taskset || return 2
+ check_command taskset || return $ksft_skip
cpu_list=$(grep -m 2 processor /proc/cpuinfo | cut -d ' ' -f 2)
- setup namespaces routing ${encap}${outer} || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing ${encap}${outer} || return $ksft_skip
trace "${ns_a}" ${encap}_a "${ns_b}" ${encap}_b \
"${ns_a}" veth_A-R1 "${ns_r1}" veth_R1-A \
"${ns_b}" veth_B-R1 "${ns_r1}" veth_R1-B
@@ -1644,7 +1644,7 @@ run_test() {
fi
err_flush
exit 1
- elif [ $ret -eq 2 ]; then
+ elif [ $ret -eq $ksft_skip ]; then
printf "TEST: %-60s [SKIP]\n" "${tdesc}"
err_flush
fi
@@ -1667,7 +1667,7 @@ run_test_nh() {
}
test_list_flush_ipv4_exception() {
- setup namespaces routing || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing || return $ksft_skip
trace "${ns_a}" veth_A-R1 "${ns_r1}" veth_R1-A \
"${ns_r1}" veth_R1-B "${ns_b}" veth_B-R1 \
"${ns_a}" veth_A-R2 "${ns_r2}" veth_R2-A \
@@ -1721,7 +1721,7 @@ test_list_flush_ipv4_exception() {
}
test_list_flush_ipv6_exception() {
- setup namespaces routing || return 2
+ setup namespaces routing || return $ksft_skip
trace "${ns_a}" veth_A-R1 "${ns_r1}" veth_R1-A \
"${ns_r1}" veth_R1-B "${ns_b}" veth_B-R1 \
"${ns_a}" veth_A-R2 "${ns_r2}" veth_R2-A \
@@ -1840,7 +1840,7 @@ for t in ${tests}; do
if [ $run_this -eq 1 ]; then
run_test "${name}" "${desc}"
# if test was skipped no need to retry with nexthop objects
- [ $? -eq 2 ] && rerun_nh=0
+ [ $? -eq $ksft_skip ] && rerun_nh=0
if [ "${rerun_nh}" = "1" ]; then
run_test_nh "${name}" "${desc}"
--
2.7.4
On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:50:51 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote:
> This test will treat all non-zero return codes as failures, it will
> make the pmtu.sh test script being marked as FAILED when some
> sub-test got skipped.
>
> Improve the result processing by
> * Only mark the whole test script as SKIP when all of the
> sub-tests were skipped
> * If the sub-tests were either passed or skipped, the overall
> result will be PASS
> * If any of them has failed, the overall result will be FAIL
> * Treat other return codes (e.g. 127 for command not found) as FAIL
>
> Signed-off-by: Po-Hsu Lin <[email protected]>
Patch 1 looks like a cleanup while patch 2 is more of a fix, can we
separate the two and apply the former to -next and latter to 5.10?
They shouldn't conflict, right?
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
> index fb53987..5c86fb1 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
> @@ -1652,7 +1652,23 @@ run_test() {
> return $ret
> )
> ret=$?
> - [ $ret -ne 0 ] && exitcode=1
> + case $ret in
> + 0)
> + all_skipped=false
> + [ $exitcode=$ksft_skip ] && exitcode=0
> + ;;
> + 1)
> + all_skipped=false
> + exitcode=1
> + ;;
Does it make sense to remove this case? The handling is identical to
the default case *).
> + $ksft_skip)
> + [ $all_skipped = true ] && exitcode=$ksft_skip
> + ;;
> + *)
> + all_skipped=false
> + exitcode=1
> + ;;
> + esac
>
> return $ret
> }
> @@ -1786,6 +1802,7 @@ usage() {
> #
> exitcode=0
> desc=0
> +all_skipped=true
>
> while getopts :ptv o
> do
On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 7:02 AM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:50:51 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote:
> > This test will treat all non-zero return codes as failures, it will
> > make the pmtu.sh test script being marked as FAILED when some
> > sub-test got skipped.
> >
> > Improve the result processing by
> > * Only mark the whole test script as SKIP when all of the
> > sub-tests were skipped
> > * If the sub-tests were either passed or skipped, the overall
> > result will be PASS
> > * If any of them has failed, the overall result will be FAIL
> > * Treat other return codes (e.g. 127 for command not found) as FAIL
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Po-Hsu Lin <[email protected]>
>
> Patch 1 looks like a cleanup while patch 2 is more of a fix, can we
> separate the two and apply the former to -next and latter to 5.10?
> They shouldn't conflict, right?
>
Hello Jakub,
Yes the first patch is just changing return code to $ksft_skip, the
real fix is the second one. However the second patch was based on the
first one, if we want to apply them separately we might need to change
this $ksft_skip handling part in the second patch.
What should I do to deal with this?
Resend the former for -next and rebase + resend the latter (plus the
fix to remove case 1) for 5.10 without the former patch?
Thanks!
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
> > index fb53987..5c86fb1 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/pmtu.sh
> > @@ -1652,7 +1652,23 @@ run_test() {
> > return $ret
> > )
> > ret=$?
> > - [ $ret -ne 0 ] && exitcode=1
> > + case $ret in
> > + 0)
> > + all_skipped=false
> > + [ $exitcode=$ksft_skip ] && exitcode=0
> > + ;;
> > + 1)
> > + all_skipped=false
> > + exitcode=1
> > + ;;
>
> Does it make sense to remove this case? The handling is identical to
> the default case *).
>
Yes you're right, we can remove this part.
> > + $ksft_skip)
> > + [ $all_skipped = true ] && exitcode=$ksft_skip
> > + ;;
> > + *)
> > + all_skipped=false
> > + exitcode=1
> > + ;;
> > + esac
> >
> > return $ret
> > }
> > @@ -1786,6 +1802,7 @@ usage() {
> > #
> > exitcode=0
> > desc=0
> > +all_skipped=true
> >
> > while getopts :ptv o
> > do
>
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:42:33 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 7:02 AM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:50:51 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote:
> > > This test will treat all non-zero return codes as failures, it will
> > > make the pmtu.sh test script being marked as FAILED when some
> > > sub-test got skipped.
> > >
> > > Improve the result processing by
> > > * Only mark the whole test script as SKIP when all of the
> > > sub-tests were skipped
> > > * If the sub-tests were either passed or skipped, the overall
> > > result will be PASS
> > > * If any of them has failed, the overall result will be FAIL
> > > * Treat other return codes (e.g. 127 for command not found) as FAIL
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Po-Hsu Lin <[email protected]>
> >
> > Patch 1 looks like a cleanup while patch 2 is more of a fix, can we
> > separate the two and apply the former to -next and latter to 5.10?
> > They shouldn't conflict, right?
> >
>
> Hello Jakub,
>
> Yes the first patch is just changing return code to $ksft_skip, the
> real fix is the second one. However the second patch was based on the
> first one, if we want to apply them separately we might need to change
> this $ksft_skip handling part in the second patch.
Ah, I misread the situation, ksft_skip is 4, not 2, so the patch is
more than just refactoring.
> What should I do to deal with this?
> Resend the former for -next and rebase + resend the latter (plus the
> fix to remove case 1) for 5.10 without the former patch?
Let's apply both of the patches to net-next if that's fine with you.
Indeed detangling them is may be more effort that it's worth.
On Tue, Nov 10, 2020 at 2:09 AM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 11:42:33 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote:
> > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 7:02 AM Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, 5 Nov 2020 18:50:51 +0800 Po-Hsu Lin wrote:
> > > > This test will treat all non-zero return codes as failures, it will
> > > > make the pmtu.sh test script being marked as FAILED when some
> > > > sub-test got skipped.
> > > >
> > > > Improve the result processing by
> > > > * Only mark the whole test script as SKIP when all of the
> > > > sub-tests were skipped
> > > > * If the sub-tests were either passed or skipped, the overall
> > > > result will be PASS
> > > > * If any of them has failed, the overall result will be FAIL
> > > > * Treat other return codes (e.g. 127 for command not found) as FAIL
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Po-Hsu Lin <[email protected]>
> > >
> > > Patch 1 looks like a cleanup while patch 2 is more of a fix, can we
> > > separate the two and apply the former to -next and latter to 5.10?
> > > They shouldn't conflict, right?
> > >
> >
> > Hello Jakub,
> >
> > Yes the first patch is just changing return code to $ksft_skip, the
> > real fix is the second one. However the second patch was based on the
> > first one, if we want to apply them separately we might need to change
> > this $ksft_skip handling part in the second patch.
>
> Ah, I misread the situation, ksft_skip is 4, not 2, so the patch is
> more than just refactoring.
>
> > What should I do to deal with this?
> > Resend the former for -next and rebase + resend the latter (plus the
> > fix to remove case 1) for 5.10 without the former patch?
>
> Let's apply both of the patches to net-next if that's fine with you.
> Indeed detangling them is may be more effort that it's worth.
That would be great, but allow me to resend V2 to get rid of case 1 first.
Thanks!