Received: by 2002:a05:6358:bb9e:b0:b9:5105:a5b4 with SMTP id df30csp698899rwb; Sat, 3 Sep 2022 00:35:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR79slqCLJFgelYqGjoZyXE7f3JdTtUEcLruvz3lyRlDhJpI3SGbfd3js42rbl+HTWRGjLHr X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:388d:b0:1ff:f17b:244d with SMTP id mu13-20020a17090b388d00b001fff17b244dmr8841647pjb.231.1662190509349; Sat, 03 Sep 2022 00:35:09 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1662190509; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=zOXcsvGgQEhmV5o/2HV391GMM8EPPqau8aWutbV2GEORg+PnN1PGX1dVftLyCdY8qq f5i6Z5J6ry4DC9/6lFMmDAFpsxZhbUgmnobGrACIwAc1aTJOomKdVbRDNn8duIsfwVbP gq1EyzhBuLZy1Hxw5esSagC+wK7Mm0v06PLBVUkbSOpzJ6ch5yhPWY4lh/I3+ZgHALWK 4qEt+i45aKqZK4FTHt277SQFANmXkaQU7lqKro9czs5EiI1BKqr6gE+HtaU1wlTDVJxm 5mkRTD7NB0Mkpwp+EVPHbyg8JnY476DqnMFapC9Ht9tXVoZVdZTdt0Hb9CCUv/0aqtM9 Rh9w== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=list-id:precedence:cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to :references:mime-version:dkim-signature; bh=ReE86CAuXFmaMHJ7YOUAJHviWpFsT5ozIc0Vr/5is54=; b=mNMKJg94OqJtECEFX1HERZhEM3fdeD5kxBsLu5NIrunlPdOMYXLuTqXGuzT0bqOiLI IsI8rEvDIUfnYcQWcSJNGIIQpBK56JDQi5CuQ9jkN9AASJEWWpMpAXqJbWto/5jEBuKG 47F/8vkkHXnzjsDCH0nenEr/YsKBnqtOi909rh6P5a6BoBydnFZBznqN61oCjHq1F0LJ m3Z/k+Xexc/uYfnIawccHbB1uoqalx4batT1/jaHOdMEHY3xi9H104XtsdYBY5GxatI9 7W2R+qRqIq4IXPri5Dl9dYVNtiHXMxwRRrlXj0jeJokZs1ZF4AMph8rOEO3CoD7CcJAR ffdA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=eFWMH5qn; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Return-Path: Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email. [2620:137:e000::1:20]) by mx.google.com with ESMTP id u10-20020a170902e5ca00b001750b7098b1si4278374plf.563.2022.09.03.00.34.50; Sat, 03 Sep 2022 00:35:09 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@google.com header.s=20210112 header.b=eFWMH5qn; spf=pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=REJECT sp=REJECT dis=NONE) header.from=google.com Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232734AbiICGwl (ORCPT + 99 others); Sat, 3 Sep 2022 02:52:41 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:37040 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231666AbiICGwj (ORCPT ); Sat, 3 Sep 2022 02:52:39 -0400 Received: from mail-yw1-x1136.google.com (mail-yw1-x1136.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1136]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 95A5EBB6A3 for ; Fri, 2 Sep 2022 23:52:38 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-yw1-x1136.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-33dce2d4bc8so33483387b3.4 for ; Fri, 02 Sep 2022 23:52:38 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=ReE86CAuXFmaMHJ7YOUAJHviWpFsT5ozIc0Vr/5is54=; b=eFWMH5qnQtV84oUmcsyzFEuWFg1a1ann3d3GfyO1fKAPei7VpCFvt3PEKfE/LWBD2/ Pj0IwkfG+2UrAk+Zq2lM3COEfUfFcFCL7RYZ8nVuQQVQR9g4fxfif/tAASgmZvNSwy5z Y5sDf66a6OFuM+7OPgHzMT8Vh6WqMdzYtjmRyUVf5YOYizLf6W8vQPfS7XALBBy/W9su Z79aaLmYlUpfGtB+Cy1bI/PK7gDqEsmkPIwZLw3aKLtCIw/0Q98W6ps9rMgv8UCULCYK HJ//3s87yITwqRnqEvMGVO5eUlnL9CUtmH25yMPL+B7zcobtXx6W/ibisQxa5Qiip/0D 5Vaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date; bh=ReE86CAuXFmaMHJ7YOUAJHviWpFsT5ozIc0Vr/5is54=; b=5MUTINJY+Z4Qby5IhIbkh0HPFZU/h0h7Iij3Tnchju1Dtt1XVWVM9wNNBvPUYJFMDw T18yFwC9BD389JxpqophXLQf1P1kSK706pNgeumpeQc/JAq9IB8pprD8hKzSKSAHvxHc bSfv2cnX9STn3bQL6RHEzOkN004EyaO99by0yLiKyxVC0EW3ySbBRnd6E8k4MBLRCUE1 uYONLss/FSU9oqa3wX6TXH+heDe7YS5heNFjIOzY7JguAvzEibu+U+fkX20hahQuxAA1 EIAMJGsUmBGDg0jHQ6Ok10yEbYhVG6wAtY61ysiUPOQYPAh2Ag0+PowKQ52jhyiyWnxx fWbw== X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo2XBKdhWg7zjY/Z64wvID/AW5VMVbNhv4ssqb9pKWR8bIPMquQR 1kyVSb8P7dzZkqDR/FW/gFw9/+vA3Ydl8wuu82H0+Q== X-Received: by 2002:a81:6808:0:b0:345:be:890a with SMTP id d8-20020a816808000000b0034500be890amr3134610ywc.267.1662187957704; Fri, 02 Sep 2022 23:52:37 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20220903000210.1112014-1-namhyung@kernel.org> In-Reply-To: <20220903000210.1112014-1-namhyung@kernel.org> From: Marco Elver Date: Sat, 3 Sep 2022 08:52:01 +0200 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH] perf test: Skip sigtrap test on old kernels To: Namhyung Kim Cc: Arnaldo Carvalho de Melo , Jiri Olsa , Ingo Molnar , Peter Zijlstra , LKML , Ian Rogers , linux-perf-users@vger.kernel.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Spam-Status: No, score=-17.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIMWL_WL_MED, DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,DKIM_VALID_EF, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE,USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL,USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on lindbergh.monkeyblade.net Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Sat, 3 Sept 2022 at 02:02, Namhyung Kim wrote: > > If it runs on an old kernel, perf_event_open would fail because of the > new fields sigtrap and sig_data. Just skip the test if it failed. > > Cc: Marco Elver > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim > --- > tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c b/tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c > index e32ece90e164..7057566e6ae4 100644 > --- a/tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c > +++ b/tools/perf/tests/sigtrap.c > @@ -140,6 +140,7 @@ static int test__sigtrap(struct test_suite *test __maybe_unused, int subtest __m > fd = sys_perf_event_open(&attr, 0, -1, -1, perf_event_open_cloexec_flag()); > if (fd < 0) { > pr_debug("FAILED sys_perf_event_open(): %s\n", str_error_r(errno, sbuf, sizeof(sbuf))); > + ret = TEST_SKIP; Wouldn't we be interested if perf_event_open() fails because it could actually be a bug? By skipping we'll be more likely to miss the fact there's a real problem. That's my naive thinking at least - what do other perf tests usually do in this case? Thanks, -- Marco