Fix input argument parsing paths to skip from their error legs.
This fix helps to avoid false test failure reports without running
the test.

Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
---
v2: Removed root check based on Anjali's review comments.

 tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c | 4 ++--
 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
index 4fe8c6763fd8..4a825b997666 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/connector/proc_filter.c
@@ -248,7 +248,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 
 	if (argc > 2) {
 		printf("Expected 0(assume no-filter) or 1 argument(-f)\n");
-		exit(1);
+		exit(KSFT_SKIP);
 	}
 
 	if (argc == 2) {
@@ -256,7 +256,7 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
 			filter = 1;
 		} else {
 			printf("Valid option : -f (for filter feature)\n");
-			exit(1);
+			exit(KSFT_SKIP);
 		}
 	}
 
-- 
2.39.2

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 16:53:57 -0600 Shuah Khan wrote:
> Fix input argument parsing paths to skip from their error legs.
> This fix helps to avoid false test failure reports without running
> the test.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>

netdev was not CCed on this or patch 3 of the previous series :S
Which is a bit odd 'cause it was CCed on patches 1 and 2 🤷️

On 7/28/23 17:21, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 16:53:57 -0600 Shuah Khan wrote:
>> Fix input argument parsing paths to skip from their error legs.
>> This fix helps to avoid false test failure reports without running
>> the test.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
> 
> netdev was not CCed on this or patch 3 of the previous series :S
> Which is a bit odd 'cause it was CCed on patches 1 and 2 🤷️

Odd. get_maintainers.pl didn't give me netdev. I added netdev
and others to the first patch from the bug report.

Would you like me to resend this with netdev on the cc?

thanks,
-- Shuah

On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 17:58:01 -0600 Shuah Khan wrote:
> > netdev was not CCed on this or patch 3 of the previous series :S
> > Which is a bit odd 'cause it was CCed on patches 1 and 2 🤷️  
> 
> Odd. get_maintainers.pl didn't give me netdev. I added netdev
> and others to the first patch from the bug report.
> 
> Would you like me to resend this with netdev on the cc?

If you don't mind that'd be quite helpful, all our local tooling
depends on the patch being in netdev's patchwork.

On 7/28/23 18:05, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 28 Jul 2023 17:58:01 -0600 Shuah Khan wrote:
>>> netdev was not CCed on this or patch 3 of the previous series :S
>>> Which is a bit odd 'cause it was CCed on patches 1 and 2 🤷️
>>
>> Odd. get_maintainers.pl didn't give me netdev. I added netdev
>> and others to the first patch from the bug report.
>>
>> Would you like me to resend this with netdev on the cc?
> 
> If you don't mind that'd be quite helpful, all our local tooling
> depends on the patch being in netdev's patchwork.

I understand - same case with kselftest patches. I rely on them
going kselftest patchwork.

Resent the patch.

thanks,
-- Shuah