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

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

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>
---
 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. */
 };
 
 struct test_case_data {
 	int test_failed;
+	int test_xfailed;
 	int test_passed;
 	u64 time;
 };
@@ -444,7 +446,7 @@ static int test_func(void *private)
 {
 	struct test_driver *t = private;
 	int random_array[ARRAY_SIZE(test_case_array)];
-	int index, i, j;
+	int index, i, j, ret;
 	ktime_t kt;
 	u64 delta;
 
@@ -468,11 +470,14 @@ static int test_func(void *private)
 		 */
 		if (!((run_test_mask & (1 << index)) >> index))
 			continue;
-
 		kt = ktime_get();
 		for (j = 0; j < test_repeat_count; j++) {
-			if (!test_case_array[index].test_func())
+			ret = test_case_array[index].test_func();
+
+			if (!ret && !test_case_array[index].xfail)
 				t->data[index].test_passed++;
+			else if (ret && test_case_array[index].xfail)
+				t->data[index].test_xfailed++;
 			else
 				t->data[index].test_failed++;
 		}
@@ -576,10 +581,11 @@ static void do_concurrent_test(void)
 				continue;
 
 			pr_info(
-				"Summary: %s passed: %d failed: %d repeat: %d loops: %d avg: %llu usec\n",
+				"Summary: %s passed: %d failed: %d xfailed: %d repeat: %d loops: %d avg: %llu usec\n",
 				test_case_array[j].test_name,
 				t->data[j].test_passed,
 				t->data[j].test_failed,
+				t->data[j].test_xfailed,
 				test_repeat_count, test_loop_count,
 				t->data[j].time);
 		}
-- 
2.43.0