[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <2117dfe4-befc-4fe4-9b5f-184433299494@sirena.org.uk>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2025 18:55:29 +0100
From: Mark Brown <broonie@...nel.org>
To: David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>
Cc: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Lorenzo Stoakes <lorenzo.stoakes@...cle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] selftests/mm: Report unique test names for each
cow test
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:48:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:57:38PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > I agree that printing something in case KSFT_PASS does not make sense
> > indeed.
> >
> > But if something goes wrong (KSFT_FAIL/KSFT_SKIP) I would expect a reason in
> > all cases.
> >
> > IIRC kselftest_harness.h behaves that way:
>
> That's mostly just it being chatty because it uses an assert based idiom
> rather than explicit pass/fail reports, it's a lot less common for
> things written directly to kselftest.h where it's for example fairly
> common to see a result detected directly in a ksft_result() call.
> That does tend to be quite helpful when looking at the results, you
> don't need to dig out the logs so often.
As was the case with the prior:
/* Finally, check if we read what we expected. */
- ksft_test_result(!memcmp(mem, tmp, size),
- "Longterm R/W pin is reliable\n");
+ if (!memcmp(mem, tmp, size))
+ log_test_result(KSFT_PASS);
+ else
+ log_test_result(KSFT_FAIL);
Download attachment "signature.asc" of type "application/pgp-signature" (489 bytes)
Powered by blists - more mailing lists