linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] selftests: timers: improve adjtick output readability

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAEOVoRxst5dJendvy-rG7+WFj1C2VtFXZP-iKQmfxC8Tr+A4dg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2025 21:42:38 +0530
From: Vishal Parmar <vishistriker@...il.com>
To: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
Cc: John Stultz <jstultz@...gle.com>, shuah@...nel.org, anna-maria@...utronix.de, 
	frederic@...nel.org, sboyd@...nel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, 
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] selftests: timers: improve adjtick output readability

hi Thomas,

> Please do not top-post and trim your replies.
Thanks, I learned about this netiquette today.
I hope this reply is in the correct format.

> The point John was making:
>
> >> So it might be worth looking into getting the output to be happy with
> >> TAP while you're tweaking things here.
>
> The kernel selftests are converting over to standardized TAP output
> format, which is intended to aid automated testing.
>
> So if we change the outpot format of this test, then we switch it over to
> TAP format and do not invent yet another randomized output scheme.

oh okay, please ignore this patch. no need to review it further.

> For the success case, the actual numbers are uninteresting. In the
> failure case it's sufficient to emit:
>
>         ksft_test_result_fail("Req: NNNN, Exp: $MMMM, Res: $LLLL\n", ...);
>
> In case of regressions (fail), a report providing this output is good
> enough for the relevant maintainer/developer to start investigating
> No?

yes understood, thanks for the explanation.

Thanks,
Vishal