Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-135225-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Mon, 8 Apr 2024 12:26:39 +0200
From: Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>
To: Dmitry Vyukov <dvyukov@google.com>
Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>, John Stultz <jstultz@google.com>,
	Marco Elver <elver@google.com>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
	"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@xmission.com>,
	linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org,
	kasan-dev@googlegroups.com, Edward Liaw <edliaw@google.com>,
	Carlos Llamas <cmllamas@google.com>,
	Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests/timers/posix_timers: reimplement
 check_timer_distribution()
Message-ID: <20240408102639.GA25058@redhat.com>
References: <87r0fmbe65.ffs@tglx>
 <CANDhNCoGRnXLYRzQWpy2ZzsuAXeraqT4R13tHXmiUtGzZRD3gA@mail.gmail.com>
 <87o7aqb6uw.ffs@tglx>
 <CANDhNCreA6nJp4ZUhgcxNB5Zye1aySDoU99+_GDS57HAF4jZ_Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <87frw2axv0.ffs@tglx>
 <20240404145408.GD7153@redhat.com>
 <87le5t9f14.ffs@tglx>
 <20240406150950.GA3060@redhat.com>
 <20240406151057.GB3060@redhat.com>
 <CACT4Y+Ych4+pdpcTk=yWYUOJcceL5RYoE_B9djX_pwrgOcGmFA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CACT4Y+Ych4+pdpcTk=yWYUOJcceL5RYoE_B9djX_pwrgOcGmFA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)

On 04/08, Dmitry Vyukov wrote:
>
> >
> >         if (ctd_failed)
> >                 ksft_test_result_skip("No signal distribution. Assuming old kernel\n");
>
> Shouldn't the test fail here? The goal of a test is to fail when
> things don't work.

I've copied this from the previous patch from Thomas, I am fine
either way.

> I don't see any other ksft_test_result_fail() calls, and it does not
> look that the test will hang on incorrect distribution.

Yes, it should never hang.

Thanks,

Oleg.