Re: [PATCH] lib/test_vmalloc.c: introduce xfail for failing tests

[Dev Jain]

On 02/07/25 1:38 pm, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> On 7/2/2025 12:18 PM, Dev Jain wrote:
> > On 02/07/25 12:13 pm, Raghavendra K T wrote:
> > > The test align_shift_alloc_test is expected to fail.
> > > Reporting the test as fail confuses to be a genuine failure.
> > > Introduce widely used xfail sematics to address the issue.
> > >
> > > Note: a warn_alloc dump similar to below is still expected:
> > >
> > >   Call Trace:
> > >    <TASK>
> > >    dump_stack_lvl+0x64/0x80
> > >    warn_alloc+0x137/0x1b0
> > >    ? __get_vm_area_node+0x134/0x140
> > >
> > > Snippet of dmesg after change:
> > >
> > > Summary: random_size_align_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 ..
> > > Summary: align_shift_alloc_test passed: 0 failed: 0 xfailed: 1 ..
> > > Summary: pcpu_alloc_test passed: 1 failed: 0 xfailed: 0 ..
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@xxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> >
> > Thanks for doing this, been thinking about this for so long but
> > I'm lazy : )
>
> :)
>
> > >   lib/test_vmalloc.c | 36 +++++++++++++++++++++---------------
> > >   1 file changed, 21 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/lib/test_vmalloc.c b/lib/test_vmalloc.c
> > > index 1b0b59549aaf..649f352e2046 100644
> > > --- a/lib/test_vmalloc.c
> > > +++ b/lib/test_vmalloc.c
> > > @@ -396,25 +396,27 @@ vm_map_ram_test(void)
> > >   struct test_case_desc {
> > >       const char *test_name;
> > >       int (*test_func)(void);
> > > +    bool xfail;
> > >   };
> > >   static struct test_case_desc test_case_array[] = {
> > > -    { "fix_size_alloc_test", fix_size_alloc_test },
> > > -    { "full_fit_alloc_test", full_fit_alloc_test },
> > > -    { "long_busy_list_alloc_test", long_busy_list_alloc_test },
> > > -    { "random_size_alloc_test", random_size_alloc_test },
> > > -    { "fix_align_alloc_test", fix_align_alloc_test },
> > > -    { "random_size_align_alloc_test", random_size_align_alloc_test },
> > > -    { "align_shift_alloc_test", align_shift_alloc_test },
> > > -    { "pcpu_alloc_test", pcpu_alloc_test },
> > > -    { "kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test", 
> > > kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test },
> > > -    { "kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test", 
> > > kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test },
> > > -    { "vm_map_ram_test", vm_map_ram_test },
> > > +    { "fix_size_alloc_test", fix_size_alloc_test, },
> > > +    { "full_fit_alloc_test", full_fit_alloc_test, },
> > > +    { "long_busy_list_alloc_test", long_busy_list_alloc_test, },
> > > +    { "random_size_alloc_test", random_size_alloc_test, },
> > > +    { "fix_align_alloc_test", fix_align_alloc_test, },
> > > +    { "random_size_align_alloc_test", random_size_align_alloc_test, },
> > > +    { "align_shift_alloc_test", align_shift_alloc_test, true },
> > > +    { "pcpu_alloc_test", pcpu_alloc_test, },
> > > +    { "kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test", 
> > > kvfree_rcu_1_arg_vmalloc_test, },
> > > +    { "kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test", 
> > > kvfree_rcu_2_arg_vmalloc_test, },
> > > +    { "vm_map_ram_test", vm_map_ram_test, },
> > >       /* Add a new test case here. */
> > >   };
> >
> > Why this change?
>
> Perhaps not entirely necessary except for align_shift_alloc_test line,
> still updated the field since one more bool field added. But let me know
> if you are okay with current state OR need a respin for that?

Oh now I saw the "true", I thought you were adding commas for no reason.

I think that's fine then, but will let Uladzislau decide.


> [...]