On Wed Apr 15, 2026 at 12:52 PM -03, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 4/15/26 09:42, Ricardo B. Marlière wrote: >> 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! > > Ricardo, Would you like to send me doc patch for this?
Sure, thanks! > > thanks, > -- Shuah
