On 09/16/2014 11:40 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> I think we will want a framework in the tree, but it can be very
> minimal. But I also think that using exit(2) for this is wrong. Why
> not:
>
> enum ktest_result {
> KTEST_PASS,
> ...,
> };
>
> void ktest_exit(enum ktest_result result);
>
> With the possibility of further extensions for more than one test (and
> associated result) per execution of the test binary.
>
Nothing wrong with the approach. It is one of the options I considered
and decided against it primarily because tests need more changes than
the ones needed for return codes. However, maybe it is worth while to
do so. I will play with this and see how extensive the changes are.
thanks,
-- Shuah
--
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | (970) 217-8978
--
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
