Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:46:33 +0200 | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: s390: selftests: Use TAP interface in the tprot test | From | Thomas Huth <> |
| |
On 20/04/2022 13.38, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote: > On 4/19/22 20:58, Thomas Huth wrote: >> The tprot test currently does not have any output (unless one of >> the TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user >> whether a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or >> not. Let's make this a little bit more user-friendly and include >> some TAP output via the kselftests.h interface. >> >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++---- >> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c >> index c097b9db495e..baba883d7a6d 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c > > We're not committing ourselves to any particular test output, are we? > Your patch considers the stages used for test setup tests themselves, > which I'm fine with, but would not want to commit to keeping that way forever.
No commitment - just somewhat more verbose output. If you don't like it, we can also drop this patch, or do it in another way, I don't mind too much.
>> +#define HOST_SYNC(vmp, stage) \ >> +{ \ >> + HOST_SYNC_NO_TAP(vmp, stage); \ >> + ksft_test_result_pass("" #stage "\n"); \ >> +} >> + > > It should not be a problem, but is there any reason you're not using > do { ... } while(0) or ({ ... }) instead of just braces?
Yes, that would be better, indeed.
Thomas
| |