On Thu, Feb 03, 2022 at 09:41:45PM -0600, Frank Rowand wrote: > On 2/3/22 3:40 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > > On Thu, Feb 3, 2022 at 3:12 PM <frowand.list@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> > >> From: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx> > >> > >> Printing the devicetree unittest pass message for each passed test > >> creates much console verbosity. The existing pass messages are > >> printed at loglevel KERN_DEBUG so they will not print by default. > >> > >> Change default to print the pass messages at the same loglevel as > >> the fail messages. > >> > >> The test community expects either a pass or a fail message for each > >> test in a test suite. The messages are typically post-processed to > >> report pass/fail results. > >> > >> Suppressing printing the pass message for each individual test is > >> available via the kernel command line parameter unittest.hide_pass. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Frank Rowand <frank.rowand@xxxxxxxx> > >> --- > >> Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt | 4 ++++ > >> drivers/of/unittest.c | 17 ++++++++++++++++- > >> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > >> index f5a27f067db9..045455f9b7e1 100644 > >> --- a/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > >> +++ b/Documentation/admin-guide/kernel-parameters.txt > >> @@ -5997,6 +5997,10 @@ > >> Note that genuine overcurrent events won't be > >> reported either. > >> > >> + unittest.hide_pass > > > > Can we rename the module name to include 'dt' so we're not taking a > > generic name. > > I got most of the way through writing a reply to the various questions, then got to > the point where my answer to a specific question ended up being something to the > effect of: "this line of code (where a change was suggested) will end up being > replaced when I convert the unittest messages to KTAP format". > > Then I got sidelined by going back and re-reading the KTAP specification email > thread from August, then discovering that there is also a patch submission email > thread from December where a KTAP specification is accepted into the kernel tree. > > Being KTAP compliant does not allow for suppressing the individual test pass > messages, so I think I should just drop my desire to be able to do so. That > would reduce this patch to a one line change to print the pass messages at the > same loglevel as the fail messages. And I would prefer to not worry about > whether the pass message is 'pass' vs 'PASS' since that text will get replaced > by the KTAP syntax anyway. > > Would you be ok with that one line patch? At info level, yes. If not, how soon until using ktap syntax? Rob
