[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <202006161701.685284F@keescook>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:02:45 -0700
From: Kees Cook <keescook@...omium.org>
To: "Bird, Tim" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
"shuah@...nel.org" <shuah@...nel.org>,
"linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: RFC - kernel selftest result documentation (KTAP)
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:37:18PM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote:
> One thing that needs to be rationalized between KUnit and selftest
> is the syntax for subtests. KUnit follows the TAP14 spec, and starts
> subtests with indented "# Subtest: name of the child test"
> and selftests just indents the output from the child test, so it
> starts with indented "TAP version 13". One issue I have with the
> TAP14/KUnit approach is that the output from the child is different
> depending on whether the test is called in the context of another
> test or not.
Right -- I'd *really* like the subtests to be "separable", since the
primary issue is actually that a subtest may not know it is a subtest,
and passing that knowledge in may be difficult/disruptive.
--
Kees Cook
Powered by blists - more mailing lists