Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
From:   Jose Abreu <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>
To:     'Andrew Lunn' <andrew@lunn.ch>,
        'Jose Abreu' <Jose.Abreu@synopsys.com>
CC:     "'netdev@vger.kernel.org'" <netdev@vger.kernel.org>,
        "'linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org'" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        'Joao Pinto' <Joao.Pinto@synopsys.com>,
        "'David S . Miller'" <davem@davemloft.net>,
        'Giuseppe Cavallaro' <peppe.cavallaro@st.com>,
        'Alexandre Torgue' <alexandre.torgue@st.com>
Subject: RE: [PATCH net-next 00/11] net: stmmac: Selftests
Thread-Topic: [PATCH net-next 00/11] net: stmmac: Selftests
Thread-Index: AQHVBXLZwJ2RZgEDF0CNP6MWY759gKZhghGAgADw7NCAAIOwAA==
Date:   Thu, 9 May 2019 16:05:35 +0000
Message-ID: <78EB27739596EE489E55E81C33FEC33A0B47B52A@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com>
References: <cover.1557300602.git.joabreu@synopsys.com>
 <20190508195011.GK25013@lunn.ch>
 <78EB27739596EE489E55E81C33FEC33A0B47AAEE@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com>
In-Reply-To: <78EB27739596EE489E55E81C33FEC33A0B47AAEE@DE02WEMBXB.internal.synopsys.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

From: Jose Abreu <joabreu@synopsys.com>
Date: Thu, May 09, 2019 at 09:17:03

> From: Andrew Lunn <andrew@lunn.ch>
> Date: Wed, May 08, 2019 at 20:50:11
>=20
> > The normal operation is interrupted by the tests you carry out
> > here. But i don't see any code looking for ETH_TEST_FL_OFFLINE
>=20
> Ok will fix to only run in offline mode then.
>=20
> >=20
> > > (Error code -95 means EOPNOTSUPP in current HW).
> >=20
> > How deep do you have to go before you know about EOPNOTSUPP?  It would
> > be better to not return the string and result at all. Or patch ethtool
> > to call strerror(3).
>=20
> When I looked at other drivers I saw that they return positive value (1)=
=20
> or zero so calling strerror in ethtool may not be ideal.
>=20
> I think its useful to let the user know if a given test is not supported=
=20
> in HW so maybe I can return 1 instead of EOPNOTSUPP ?

After thinking about this in more detail I now realize that returning 1=20
is not ideal because when a test fails it will also return 1. So if I do=20
it this way and more than one test fails then user won't know if the test=20
really failed or if it wasn't supported in the first time.

Any advice ?

Thanks,
Jose Miguel Abreu