[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <541877BE.5080903@osg.samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:47:42 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
To: Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
CC: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>, colin.king@...onical.com,
"Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Serge Hallyn <serge.hallyn@...ntu.com>,
thierry@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, felipensp@...il.com,
Linux API <linux-api@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/7] selftests: add header file for test exit code defines
On 09/16/2014 11:40 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com> wrote:
>
> I think we will want a framework in the tree, but it can be very
> minimal. But I also think that using exit(2) for this is wrong. Why
> not:
>
> enum ktest_result {
> KTEST_PASS,
> ...,
> };
>
> void ktest_exit(enum ktest_result result);
>
> With the possibility of further extensions for more than one test (and
> associated result) per execution of the test binary.
>
Nothing wrong with the approach. It is one of the options I considered
and decided against it primarily because tests need more changes than
the ones needed for return codes. However, maybe it is worth while to
do so. I will play with this and see how extensive the changes are.
thanks,
-- Shuah
--
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@....samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists