On Thu, Sep 18, 2025 at 3:13 AM Uday Shankar <ushan...@purestorage.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 17, 2025 at 11:52:38AM +0800, Ming Lei wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 16, 2025 at 04:05:57PM -0600, Uday Shankar wrote: > > > Add a test that verifies that the currently running kernel does not > > > report support for any features that are unrecognized by kublk. This > > > should catch cases where features are added without updating kublk's > > > feat_map accordingly, which has happened multiple times in the past (see > > > [1], [2]). > > > > > > Note that this new test may fail if the test suite is older than the > > > kernel, and the newer kernel contains a newly introduced feature. I > > > believe this is not a use case we currently care about - we only care > > > about newer test suites passing on older kernels. > > > > > > [1] > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/20250606214011.2576398-1-csan...@purestorage.com/t/#u > > > [2] > > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-block/2a370ab1-d85b-409d-b762-f9f3f6bdf...@nvidia.com/t/#m1c520a058448d594fd877f07804e69b28908533f > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Uday Shankar <ushan...@purestorage.com> > > > --- > > > tools/testing/selftests/ublk/Makefile | 1 + > > > tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_13.sh | 16 ++++++++++++++++ > > > 2 files changed, 17 insertions(+) > > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/Makefile > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/Makefile > > > index > > > 5d7f4ecfb81612f919a89eb442f948d6bfafe225..770269efe42ab460366485ccc80abfa145a0c57b > > > 100644 > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/Makefile > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/Makefile > > > @@ -20,6 +20,7 @@ TEST_PROGS += test_generic_09.sh > > > TEST_PROGS += test_generic_10.sh > > > TEST_PROGS += test_generic_11.sh > > > TEST_PROGS += test_generic_12.sh > > > +TEST_PROGS += test_generic_13.sh > > > > > > TEST_PROGS += test_null_01.sh > > > TEST_PROGS += test_null_02.sh > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_13.sh > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_13.sh > > > new file mode 100755 > > > index > > > 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..ff5f22b078ddd08bc19f82aa66da6a44fa073f6f > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/ublk/test_generic_13.sh > > > @@ -0,0 +1,16 @@ > > > +#!/bin/bash > > > +# SPDX-License-Identifier: GPL-2.0 > > > + > > > +. "$(cd "$(dirname "$0")" && pwd)"/test_common.sh > > > + > > > +TID="generic_13" > > > +ERR_CODE=0 > > > + > > > +_prep_test "null" "check that feature list is complete" > > > + > > > +if ${UBLK_PROG} features | grep -q unknown; then > > > + ERR_CODE=255 > > > +fi > > > + > > > +_cleanup_test "null" > > > +_show_result $TID $ERR_CODE > > > > What if the ublk selftest is run on downstream kernel? > > > > Maybe the output can changed to "unsupported" to show that ublk selftest > > code doesn't cover or use this feature. > > Yes I pointed out this issue in the commit message too. But I am unsure > what you're asking for. > > I think we need a failure here if this test is to fulfill its intended > purposes (catching cases where a feature is added without updating the > feat_map in kublk). This does also cause failures in cases where an old > test suite is run against a newer kernel. Since I think this is an > unusual case, perhaps I can add a log line when this test fails saying
That also requires any new feature to have a selftest to cover, but sounds good, and should be the motivation of this patch. > that the failure is expected if running an old test suite against a new > kernel? Fair enough, then this patch looks fine for me: Reviewed-by: Ming Lei <ming....@redhat.com> Thanks,
