On Wed Apr 15, 2026 at 12:40 PM -03, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 4/15/26 07:58, Mark Brown wrote: >> On Fri, Mar 20, 2026 at 03:29:20PM -0300, Ricardo B. Marlière wrote: >>> Track failures explicitly in the top-level selftests all/install loops. >>> >>> The current code multiplies `ret` by each sub-make exit status. For >>> example, with `TARGETS=net`, the implicit `net/lib` dependency runs after >>> `net`, so a failed `net` build can be followed by a successful `net/lib` >>> build and reset the final result to success. >>> >>> Set `ret` to 1 on any non-zero sub-make exit code and keep it sticky, so >>> the top-level make returns failure when any selected selftest target >>> fails. >> >> This patch, which is now in mainline as 7e47389142b8, is breaking a >> bunch of CI systems - at least KernelCI, our Arm internal CI and my >> personal stuff. It causes the equivalent of FORCE_TARGETS behaviour in >> the top level Makefile, the prior behaviour where the exit status of the >> top level Makefile ignores failures from individual directories is >> desirable since by default we try to build almost all the selftests but >> between quality issues and build time dependencies it's very common for >> at least one of them to fail. With this commit unless the user has >> configured a more restricted set of selftests it would be surprising if >> we manage to get a successful build and install. >> >> As well as being a poor default due to the very high likelyhood of build >> failures this also has the undesirable effect of causing a build failure >> in one selftest to cause the whole install target to fail, meaning that >> the build failure is escallated to a complete lost of coverge for all >> selftests in common CI usage. >> >> This wasn't showing up in my -next build tests since I set FORCE_TARGETS >> and explicitly choose a restricted set of kselftests which actually >> build with my system and configuration. It was less obvious than it >> should have been with the other systems since they did not expect there >> to be a complete failure to generate a kselftest tarball and variously >> masked the error or reported it in a manner that looked like an >> infrastructure issue. > > I didn't see it when I did test on linux-next and my repo. I did install > to catch problems. > > Sorry for not catching this. We can drop this patch. > >> >> It would be really nice to get to the point where we can reasonably do >> this but we're simply not there at the current time. At the moment if >> people want to see build failures reported at the top level that really >> needs to be opt in, we have FORCE_TARGETS for that. > > Good point - I will go look and see if we document this in kselftest doc > and add it.
It's not documented. It would have solved my issue, sorry for overlooking this! > > Mark, would you like to a revert for this? > > thanks, > -- Shuah
