Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1751839AbdFSPL5 (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:11:57 -0400 Received: from mail-wm0-f45.google.com ([74.125.82.45]:35136 "EHLO mail-wm0-f45.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750982AbdFSPLz (ORCPT ); Mon, 19 Jun 2017 11:11:55 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <149788426772.14237.4686476703933342760@mail.alporthouse.com> References: <1497879872-11137-1-git-send-email-sumit.semwal@linaro.org> <149788031144.14237.2576196706318669393@mail.alporthouse.com> <149788426772.14237.4686476703933342760@mail.alporthouse.com> From: Sumit Semwal Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2017 20:41:33 +0530 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests: lib: prime_numbers: update presence check To: Chris Wilson Cc: shuah@kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, lukas@wunner.de, LKML , Daniel Vetter , Joonas Lahtinen Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 2147 Lines: 53 On 19 June 2017 at 20:27, Chris Wilson wrote: > Quoting Sumit Semwal (2017-06-19 15:46:20) >> Hi Chris, >> >> On 19 June 2017 at 19:21, Chris Wilson wrote: >> > Quoting Sumit Semwal (2017-06-19 14:44:32) >> >> The test for prime numbers doesn't differentiate between missing >> >> prime_numbers.ko and failure in prime_numbers.ko. >> >> >> >> Update it to check for presence of the file itself to skip, therefore >> >> correctly exercising the test failure case. >> > >> > modprobe -r shouldn't be executing the module? But you still need to >> > unload the module before you can load it with the selftest module >> > parameters. If you can't unload the module due to an earlier failure, >> > you cannot discern whether or not the module itself is at fault, so >> > still want to SKIP. >> >> My bad here: I missed the '-r' in the first modprobe. >> >> I am wondering if 'modprobe -q -n' won't suffice, as it is a dry-run >> only, but will still search for the module? Unless of course, there's >> something specific about '-q -r' that seems better still? > > I think there are two things to be tested here, both causing a SKIP. > > - If the module doesn't exist at all; modprobe -q -n seems sensible for > querying its existence. > > - If the module cannot be [un]loaded; for which I was using the > modprobe -q -r. If we can't unload the module, then we can't test :) :) Right; then the question is, for prime_numbers.ko, do we need to differentiate between these 2 SKIPs? The unloading of the prime_numbers module before running the test is required since it isn't a standalone test module - unlike the test_bitmap and test_printf ones. So then, for prime_numbers: if distinguishing between the two cases you mentioned above isn't important, we can just keep your original code. If it is important to distinguish, I can add the -q -n test to query existence separately. For test_bitmap and test_printf tests, I think I will just go ahead with -q -n itself, since we can assume that the test modules will only be loaded/unloaded via these tests I guess? > > -Chris Best, Sumit.