[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <sryavktjx6eqavjseo7ktii3v2g7opfodsv42fdlsy4dm3dwy4@algmgqcm6m35>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2024 10:42:44 +0100
From: Maciej Wieczor-Retman <maciej.wieczor-retman@...el.com>
To: Reinette Chatre <reinette.chatre@...el.com>
CC: Fenghua Yu <fenghua.yu@...el.com>, Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
<ilpo.jarvinen@...ux.intel.com>, <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
<linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 3/3] selftests/resctrl: Move cleanups out of
individual tests
On 2024-02-23 at 13:18:32 -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>Hi Maciej,
>
>On 2/22/2024 4:07 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
>> index 161f5365b4f0..bae08d1221ec 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/resctrl/resctrl_tests.c
>> @@ -134,6 +134,8 @@ static void run_single_test(const struct resctrl_test *test, const struct user_p
>> }
>>
>> ret = test->run_test(test, uparams);
>> + if (test->cleanup)
>> + test->cleanup();
>> ksft_test_result(!ret, "%s: test\n", test->name);
>>
>> cleanup:
>
>I think this can be potentially confusing to do cleanup here and
>then follow it with a test_cleanup(). Could this test specific
>cleanup perhaps be called from the general test_cleanup() instead?
Sure, that should look nicer, thanks!
>
>Reinette
--
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman
Powered by blists - more mailing lists