[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <d7601a03-ba82-4a7e-bdd8-6cc23dec812c@linuxfoundation.org>
Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2024 14:32:26 -0600
From: Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
To: Zhu Jun <zhujun2@...s.chinamobile.com>, zhang.lyra@...il.com
Cc: shuah@...nel.org, kees@...nel.org, luto@...capital.net, wad@...omium.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] selftests:Fix printf format string in
kselftest_harness.h
On 7/24/24 00:26, Zhu Jun wrote:
> '%u' in format string requires 'unsigned int' in __wait_for_test()
> but the argument type is 'signed int' that this problem was discovered
> by reading code.use macro WTERMSIG like those above usage to
> fix the wrong format specifier.
>
Now the commit summary doesn't match the change you are making.
Also WTERMSIG() is incorrect for this conditional code path.
See comments below in the code path.
I would leave the v2 code intact. How are you testing this change?
Please include the details in the change log.
Reformat the message to too imperative mood.
Check Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst for details
on how to write commit messages.
> Signed-off-by: Zhu Jun <zhujun2@...s.chinamobile.com>
> ---
> Changes
> v1->v2:
> modify commit info add how to find the problem in the log
> v2->v3:
> Seems this can use macro WTERMSIG like those above usage, rather than
> changing the print format.
>
> tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h
> index dbbbcc6c04ee..f41f4435e9a4 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_harness.h
> @@ -1086,7 +1086,7 @@ void __wait_for_test(struct __test_metadata *t)
> fprintf(TH_LOG_STREAM,
> "# %s: Test ended in some other way [%d]\n",> t->name,
> - status);
> + WTERMSIG(status));
WTERMSIG() is not the correct call to use since it is not a
WIFSIGNALED conditional.
thanks,
-- Shuah
Powered by blists - more mailing lists