On 4/6/21 2:44 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
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."
ok yes better.
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 :)
grrr I thought I did remove this.
will do.
- { "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?
Yes, I can do that.
+
+ 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.
OK, I will re-arrange the test order.
Thanks,
Pierre
--
Pierre Morel
IBM Lab Boeblingen
