Re: [RFC PATCH v3 6/9] selftests: cgroup: Add basic tests for pids controller

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 4/8/24 4:29 PM, Michal Koutný wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 07, 2024 at 02:37:44AM +0500, Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The
>> 	ksft_print_header();
>> 	ksft_set_plan(total_number_of_tests);
>> are missing. Please use all of the ksft APIs to make the test TAP compliant.
> 
> Will do.
> 
>>> +	for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++) {
>>> +		switch (tests[i].fn(root)) {
>>> +		case KSFT_PASS:
>>> +			ksft_test_result_pass("%s\n", tests[i].name);
>>> +			break;
>>> +		case KSFT_SKIP:
>>> +			ksft_test_result_skip("%s\n", tests[i].name);
>>> +			break;
>>> +		default:
>>> +			ret = EXIT_FAILURE;
>>> +			ksft_test_result_fail("%s\n", tests[i].name);
>>> +			break;
>> Use ksft_test_result_report() instead of swith-case here.
> 
> Do you mean ksft_test_result()? That one cannot distinguish the
> KSFT_SKIP case.
> Or ksft_test_result_code(tests[i].fn(root), tests[i].name)?
No, this doesn't seem useful here.

> 
> Would the existing ksft_test_resul_*() calls inside switch-case still
> TAP-work?
This part of your switch-case are correct. It just that by using
ksft_test_result_report you can achieve the same thing. It has has SKIP
support.

ksft_test_result_report(tests[i].fn(root), tests[i].name)

> 
> Thanks,
> Michal

-- 
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum




[Index of Archives]     [Linux ARM Kernel]     [Linux ARM]     [Linux Omap]     [Fedora ARM]     [IETF Annouce]     [Security]     [Bugtraq]     [Linux OMAP]     [Linux MIPS]     [eCos]     [Asterisk Internet PBX]     [Linux API]     [Monitors]

  Powered by Linux