Re: [bpf-next 3/4] selftests/bpf: report failed subtest count in test_progs summary
Vineet Gupta <[email protected]> Mon, 3 Aug 2026 11:36:34 -0700
| Newsgroups | org.kernel.vger.bpf,org.kernel.vger.linux-kernel |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 8/3/26 11:31 AM, [email protected] wrote: >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/bpf/test_progs.c > [ ... ] > >> @@ -1726,12 +1731,12 @@ >> fclose(env->json); >> >> if (env->not_built_cnt) >> - printf("Summary: %d/%d PASSED, %d SKIPPED (%d not built), %d FAILED\n", >> + printf("Summary: %d/%d PASSED, %d SKIPPED (%d not built), %d/%d FAILED\n", >> succ_cnt, sub_succ_cnt, skip_cnt, env->not_built_cnt, >> - fail_cnt); >> + fail_cnt, sub_fail_cnt); >> else >> - printf("Summary: %d/%d PASSED, %d SKIPPED, %d FAILED\n", >> - succ_cnt, sub_succ_cnt, skip_cnt, fail_cnt); >> + printf("Summary: %d/%d PASSED, %d SKIPPED, %d/%d FAILED\n", >> + succ_cnt, sub_succ_cnt, skip_cnt, fail_cnt, sub_fail_cnt); > A subsystem pattern flags this as potentially concerning: the BPF selftests > guide asks that test binaries emit TAP-compliant output via kselftest.h > (ksft_set_plan()/ksft_finished()) rather than hand-formatting their own > summary lines with printf(), so that kselftest runners and CI can parse the > results uniformly. > > test_progs.c has always had its own reporting framework and does not use > kselftest.h; this predates the patch by many years and converting it is far > outside the scope of this change. The patch only widens one existing field on > an already ad hoc line. > > The changelog acknowledges that the field-format change means "anything > scraping 'N FAILED' out of it needs updating." A search over .github/workflows, > .github/scripts, ci/, tools/testing/selftests/bpf/*.sh and Documentation/ > turned up no in-tree parser of the test_progs summary line. > > Does this output format remain compatible with the consumers you're aware of? As the Changelog mentions, I don't know of any existing in-tree consumers/parser of the existing info. Thx, -Vineet > > > --- > AI reviewed your patch. Please fix the bug or email reply why it's not a bug. > See: https://github.com/kernel-patches/vmtest/blob/master/ci/claude/README.md > > CI run summary: https://github.com/kernel-patches/bpf/actions/runs/30836252778