On 2/9/22 6:34 PM, Rob Herring wrote: > 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? OK, I'll redo the patch as a one liner, printing pass messages at the info level. The KTAP syntax is going to depend on KTAP specification version 2. I have a patch series against version 1 that is at version 4. I think that series is likely to be accepted with no further changes. There was a big thread last summer about what to add to the KTAP specification, but most of the suggestions (even with much agreement) did not get into the KTAP version 1 specification that was added to the kernel tree in December. Once my KTAP version 1 specification clean up patches are accepted, I will move on to pulling items from the August thread, one item per patch series to focus discussion, to create KTAP version 2. So timing will be based on the review timing. The involved parties have been responsive, so I expect the process to move fairly quickly. -Frank > > Rob >
