linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 2/3] kunit: add ability to specify suite-level init and exit functions

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]

Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:06:35 -0500
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kunit: add ability to specify suite-level init and
 exit functions

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 8:56 PM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> >  static size_t kunit_suite_counter = 1;
> >
> > -static void kunit_print_suite_end(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > +static void kunit_print_suite_end(struct kunit_suite *suite, int init_err)
>
> A part of me feels that it'd be nicer to have the init_err be part of
> struct kunit_suite, and have kunit_suite_has_succeeded() take it into
> account. It could go either way, though -- WDYT?

Yeah, passing it around as a parameter felt a bit icky.
But I think adding it in as a field feels worse.

Another thought: perhaps have this function take a `kunit_status`
parameter instead?
Moving the ?: expression below out into the caller isn't that bad, imo.

>
>
> >  {
> > +       enum kunit_status status =
> > +               init_err ? KUNIT_FAILURE : kunit_suite_has_succeeded(suite);
> > +