linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] selftests: add kselftest framework for uniform test reporting

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <5423404B.2050400@osg.samsung.com>
Date:	Wed, 24 Sep 2014 16:06:03 -0600
From:	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
To:	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
CC:	akpm@...ux-foundation.org, gregkh@...uxfoundation.org,
	colin.king@...onical.com, ebiederm@...ssion.com,
	serge.hallyn@...ntu.com, thierry@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	luto@...capital.net, linux-api@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/7] selftests: add kselftest framework for uniform
 test reporting

On 09/24/2014 02:09 AM, Davidlohr Bueso wrote:

>> +/* counters */
>> +static int ksft_pass;
>> +static int ksft_fail;
>> +static int ksft_xfail;
>> +static int ksft_xpass;
>> +static int ksft_xskip;
> 
> unsigned int?

Yes unsigned int is a better choice.

> 
>> +static inline void ksft_inc_pass_cnt(void) { ksft_pass++; }
>> +static inline void ksft_inc_fail_cnt(void) { ksft_fail++; }
>> +static inline void ksft_inc_xfail_cnt(void) { ksft_xfail++; }
>> +static inline void ksft_inc_xpass_cnt(void) { ksft_xpass++; }
>> +static inline void ksft_inc_xskip_cnt(void) { ksft_xskip++; }
> 
> It would probably make sense to have the counters in a structures,
> something like: struct ksft_counter { ... } ksft_cnt;
> 
> Then just pass it around the proposed functions as arguments. That also
> minimizes a bit the global variables and would allow you to easily
> change it in the future.

How does the following look?

struct ksft_count
{
        unsigned int ksft_pass;
        unsigned int ksft_fail;
        unsigned int ksft_xfail;
        unsigned int ksft_xpass;
        unsigned int ksft_xskip;
};

static ksft_count ksft_cnt;

static inline void ksft_inc_pass_cnt(void) { ksft_cnt.ksft_pass++; }
static inline void ksft_inc_fail_cnt(void) { ksft_cnt.ksft_fail++; }
static inline void ksft_inc_xfail_cnt(void) { ksft_cnt.ksft_xfail++; }
static inline void ksft_inc_xpass_cnt(void) { ksft_cnt.ksft_xpass++; }
static inline void ksft_inc_xskip_cnt(void) { ksft_cnt.ksft_xskip++; }

With this approach, tests don't have to define their own counter
variable and pass it in. I am looking to abstract the framework
as much as possible.

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/