On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 16:33 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote: > Add a new header file that defines exit codes for individual > tests to use to communicate test results. These defines are > intended to provide a common and uniform way for selftests > to report results. pass/fail/xfail/xpass/skip/unsupported > are defined. > > Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > --- > tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+) > create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h > new file mode 100644 > index 0000000..1b1c9cb > --- /dev/null > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h > @@ -0,0 +1,20 @@ > +/* > + * kselftest.h - kselftest framework return codes to include from > + * selftests. > + * > + * Copyright (c) 2014 Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > + * Copyright (c) 2014 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. > + * > + * This file is released under the GPLv2. > + */ > +#ifndef __KSELFTEST_H > +#define __KSELFTEST_H > + > +#define EXIT_PASS 0 > +#define EXIT_FAIL 1 > +#define EXIT_XFAIL 2 > +#define EXIT_XPASS 3 > +#define EXIT_SKIP 4 > +#define EXIT_UNSUPPORTED EXIT_SKIP Looks to me like a potential name clashes here. What's the difference between XFAIL/XPASS and regular FAIL/PASS (I don't see the former used in patchset either, only PASS/FAIL)? What's the purpose of EXIT_SKIP? I think overall these should be commented. Also, in the bigger picture, I'm guessing you have a reason for not recycling errno and inventing your own exit codes... How do you plan on using these? In addition I'm seeing things like: - exit(EXIT_FAILURE); + exit(EXIT_FAIL); which isn't a very good idea in general. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-api" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
