On Tue, 6 Apr 2021 09:40:40 +0200
Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> We will have to test if a device is present for every tests
> in the future.
> Let's provide separate the first tests from the test loop and
> skip the remaining tests if no device is present.
What about the following patch description:
"We keep adding tests that act upon a concrete device, and we have to
test that a device is present for all of those.
Instead, just skip all of the tests requiring a device if we were not
able to set it up in the first place. The enumeration test will already
have failed in that case."
>
> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel <pmorel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> s390x/css.c | 36 ++++++++++++++----------------------
> 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 22 deletions(-)
>
(...)
> @@ -336,8 +316,6 @@ static struct {
> void (*func)(void);
> } tests[] = {
> /* The css_init test is needed to initialize the CSS Characteristics */
If you remove the css_init test from this list, the above comment does
not make sense anymore :)
> - { "initialize CSS (chsc)", css_init },
> - { "enumerate (stsch)", test_enumerate },
> { "enable (msch)", test_enable },
> { "sense (ssch/tsch)", test_sense },
> { "measurement block (schm)", test_schm },
> @@ -352,11 +330,25 @@ int main(int argc, char *argv[])
>
> report_prefix_push("Channel Subsystem");
> enable_io_isc(0x80 >> IO_SCH_ISC);
> +
> + report_prefix_push("initialize CSS (chsc)");
> + css_init();
> + report_prefix_pop();
> +
> + report_prefix_push("enumerate (stsch)");
> + test_enumerate();
> + report_prefix_pop();
Could we maybe have two lists of tests: one that don't require a
device, and one that does?
> +
> + if (!test_device_sid)
> + goto end;
In any case, I think we should log an explicit message that we skip the
remaining tests because of no device being available.
> +
> for (i = 0; tests[i].name; i++) {
> report_prefix_push(tests[i].name);
> tests[i].func();
> report_prefix_pop();
> }
> +
> +end:
> report_prefix_pop();
>
> return report_summary();
