[LTP] [PATCH 1/1] cgroup_regression_test.sh: Fix TWARN usage

[Cristian Marussi]

On 26/02/2019 18:42, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Cristian,
> 
>> Using TWARN to report that a specific sub-testcase is skipped
>> caused the whole cgroup_regression_test.sh to be reported as
>> FAILING. Using TCONF instead.
> 
> Fixes: 78bfa7e78 ("cgroup: Simplify check_kernel_bug usage")
> My commit, sorry :(.
> 

No worries...:>

>> Signed-off-by: Cristian Marussi <cristian.marussi@arm.com>
>> ---
>>  testcases/kernel/controllers/cgroup/cgroup_regression_test.sh | 2 +-
>>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
>> diff --git a/testcases/kernel/controllers/cgroup/cgroup_regression_test.sh b/testcases/kernel/controllers/cgroup/cgroup_regression_test.sh
>> index 686860923..e197f5d3f 100755
>> --- a/testcases/kernel/controllers/cgroup/cgroup_regression_test.sh
>> +++ b/testcases/kernel/controllers/cgroup/cgroup_regression_test.sh
>> @@ -408,7 +408,7 @@ test_7_2()
> 
>>  	grep -q -w "cpu" /proc/cgroups
>>  	if [ $? -ne 0 -o ! -e /proc/sched_debug ]; then
>> -		tst_res TWARN "skip rest of testing due possible oops triggered by reading /proc/sched_debug"
>> +		tst_res TCONF "skip rest of testing due possible oops triggered by reading /proc/sched_debug"
> Right, TWARN is not good (IMHO TWARN is not popular in LTP testsuites due marking test failing),
> but if you don't mind I'd merge it with TBROK (more appropriate in this case).

mmm...I'm NOT so sure that a FAIL should be the outcome here ... we are skipping
if cpu is not amongst cgroups or sched_debug is NOT available...BUT at this
point we have run (or skipped) 7 tests so far and there are 3 more to go...so
why can't we just TCONF ?
(beside the fact that as I said in the cover-letter one TCONF will lead to the
whole 10-subtest croup suite to be reported as TCONF...)

Regards

Cristian

> 
> Other option would be to use TINFO and don't skip test (we're trying to find
> kernel crashes, don't we), that's probably a bit crazy.
> 
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>