On Mon, 2026-06-01 at 19:24 -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> This is an AI-generated review of your patch. The human sending this
> email has considered the AI review valid, or at least plausible.
> ---
> selftests: rds: report missing RDMA prereqs as XFAIL
>
> This commit changes the exit code and message tag for RDMA prerequisites in
> the RDS selftests to report as an expected failure instead of a skip.
>
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/net/rds/rds_run.sh
> > b/tools/testing/selftests/net/rds/rds_run.sh
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/net/rds/rds_run.sh
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/net/rds/rds_run.sh
> > @@ -123,10 +123,10 @@ check_rdma_conf_enabled() {
> > probe_module "$2"
> > return
> > fi
> > - echo "selftests: [SKIP] rdma transport requires $1 enabled"
> > + echo "selftests: [XFAIL] rdma transport requires $1 enabled"
> > echo "To enable, run" \
> > "tools/testing/selftests/net/rds/config.sh -r and rebuild"
> > - exit 4
> > + exit 5
>
> [Severity: High]
> Is exit code 5 the correct value for an expected failure in the kselftest
> framework?
>
> Looking at the kselftest framework in tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
> and ktap_helpers.sh, the expected failure code (KSFT_XFAIL) is defined as 2.
>
> When runner.sh receives an exit code of 5, it does not match KSFT_XFAIL.
> Instead, it falls through to the default case and calls ktap_test_fail,
> which logs a hard test failure.
>
> Could this actively fail the test in the continuous integration environments
> rather than marking it as an expected failure?
You're right its 2, good catch. I will fix that and config.sh in a v3. Thanks!
Allison
>
> [ ... ]
