[PATCH v1 5/5] selftests/mm: soft-dirty should fail if a testcase fails

[Ryan Roberts]

On 23/04/2024 09:44, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> On 4/23/24 1:24 PM, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>> On 22/04/2024 10:33, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> On 19.04.24 09:43, Ryan Roberts wrote:
>>>> Previously soft-dirty was unconditionally exiting with success, even if
>>>> one of it's testcases failed. Let's fix that so that failure can be
>>>> reported to automated systems properly.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Ryan Roberts <ryan.roberts at arm.com>
> Reviewed-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum at collabora.com>

Thanks!

> 
>>>> ---
>>>>   tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c | 2 +-
>>>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c
>>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c
>>>> index 7dbfa53d93a0..bdfa5d085f00 100644
>>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c
>>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/mm/soft-dirty.c
>>>> @@ -209,5 +209,5 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>>>
>>>>       close(pagemap_fd);
>>>>
>>>> -    return ksft_exit_pass();
>>>> +    ksft_finished();
>>>>   }
>>>> -- 
>>>> 2.25.1
>>>>
>>>
>>> Guess that makes sense independent of all the other stuff?
>>
>> Yes definitely. What's the process here? Do I need to re-post as a stand-alone
>> patch? Or perhaps, Shuah, you could take this into your tree as is?
> She can. But if she misses it or you want to post v2 of this current
> series, you can just send this one separately. Usually I try to send
> separate patches for trivial and discussion required patches so that there
> isn't confusion of this kind.

Thanks - I'll do that.

> 
>>
>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david at redhat.com>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>