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

[Raghavendra K T <raghavendra.kt@amd.com>]

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@amd.com>
>> ---
> 
> 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?

[...]