linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/5] kselftest: Add exit code defines

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

Message-ID: <1427672690.4218.1.camel@ellerman.id.au>
Date:	Mon, 30 Mar 2015 10:44:50 +1100
From:	Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To:	Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
Cc:	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
	linux-api@...r.kernel.org, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
	Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
	KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/5] kselftest: Add exit code defines

On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 16:09 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> 
> On 3/27/15 3:59 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> > On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 15:17 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
> >> Define the exit codes with KSFT_PASS and similar so tests can use these
> >> directly if they choose. Also enable harnesses and other tooling to use
> >> the defines instead of hardcoding the return codes.
> >  
> > +1
> > 
> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
> >> index 572c888..ef1c80d 100644
> >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
> >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
> >> @@ -13,6 +13,13 @@
> >>  #include <stdlib.h>
> >>  #include <unistd.h>
> >>  
> >> +/* define kselftest exit codes */
> >> +#define KSFT_PASS  0
> >> +#define KSFT_FAIL  1
> >> +#define KSFT_XFAIL 2
> >> +#define KSFT_XPASS 3
> >> +#define KSFT_SKIP  4
> >> +
> >>  /* counters */
> >>  struct ksft_count {
> >>  	unsigned int ksft_pass;
> >> @@ -40,23 +47,23 @@ static inline void ksft_print_cnts(void)
> >>  
> >>  static inline int ksft_exit_pass(void)
> >>  {
> >> -	exit(0);
> >> +	exit(KSFT_PASS);
> >>  }
> > 
> > Am I the only person who's bothered by the fact that these don't actually
> > return int?
> 
> That bothered me to, but I couldn't be bothered to go read the manuals
> apparently to come up with a compelling argument :-)

Yeah, obviously the compiler accepts it, but it's still a bit weird.

> I also think the ksft_exit* routines should go ahead and increment the
> counters (at least optionally) so we don't have to call two functions.

But the ksft_exit_*() routines exit, so there's no point incrementing the
counters. Unless they *also* print the counters before exiting?

To be honest I think we need to decide if the selftests are going to speak TAP
or xUnit or whatever, and then switch to that. In their current form these
helpers don't help much.

cheers


--
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/