On Fri, Nov 14, 2025 at 4:59 AM Guopeng Zhang <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Michal, > > Thanks for reviewing and pointing out [1]. > > > Could you please explain more why is the TAP layout beneficial? > > (I understand selftest are for oneself, i.e. human readable only by > > default.) > > Actually, selftests are no longer just something for developers to view > locally; they are now extensively > run in CI and stable branch regression testing. Using a standardized layout > means that general test runners > and CI systems can parse the cgroup test results without any special handling.
I second that. In fact, we do run some of those tests in the CI; i.e. https://openqa.opensuse.org/tests/5453031#external We added this: https://github.com/os-autoinst/openQA/blob/master/lib/OpenQA/Parser/Format/KTAP.pm to our CI but frankly the use of the KTAP across the selftests is very inconsistent, so we need to post-process some of the output files quite a lot. Therefore the more standardized the output, the better for any CI. Small ask: should we amend the commit message to say KTAP? That being said - the cgroups tests produce nice output which is easy to parse and gives us no issues in our CI apart from the shell tests, specifically test_cpuset_prs.sh. We currently run the cgroup tests only internally because some of them tend to fail when crossing resource-usage boundaries and don’t provide clear information about by how much. That ties into my earlier effort Michal linked here:: https://lore.kernel.org/all/rua6ubri67gh3b7atarbm5mggqgjyh6646mzkry2n2547jne4s@wvvpr3esi5es/ I’ll try to add the cgroup tests to the public openSUSE CI and will test your patches. > > TAP provides a structured format that is both human-readable and > machine-readable. The plan/result lines are parsed by tools, > while the diagnostic lines can still contain human-readable debug > information. Over time, other selftest suites (such as mm, KVM, mptcp, etc.) > have also been converted to TAP-style output, so this change just brings the > cgroup tests in line with that broader direction. > > > Or is this part of some tree-wide effort? > > This patch is not part of a formal, tree-wide conversion series I am running; > it is an incremental step to align the > cgroup C tests with the existing TAP usage. I started here because these > tests already use ksft_test_result_*() and > only require minor changes to generate proper TAP output. > > > I'm asking to better asses whether also the scripts listed in > > Makefile:TEST_PROGS should be converted too. > > I agree that having them produce TAP output would benefit tooling and CI. I > did not want to mix > that into this change, but if you and other maintainers think this direction > is reasonable, > I would be happy to follow up and convert the cgroup shell tests to TAP as > well. > > Thanks again for your review. > > Best regards, > Guopeng > >
