On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 9:51 PM, Noah Massey <noah.massey@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018 at 10:56 AM Coly Li <colyli@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> + pr_info("test_crc: %s: PASSED:(0x%016llx, expected 0x%016llx)\n",
>> + name, crc, expval);
>
> I don't think we should have specific kernel output for passed tests.
> If a new test is added which follows this pattern, the 0-day will fail
> because the kernel output would change. Along the lines of "silence is
> golden", if no test hit the error output, we're good.
Agree.
>> + if (err == 0)
>> + pr_info("test_crc: all %d tests passed\n", i);
>
> Similar to previous comment: we should not report the number of passed
> tests, since adding a test would invalidate previous golden output.
> Also, consider the situation where some tests are conditionally
> executed depending on kconfig.
We do similar in many test modules and I know at least two that had
been changed in order to get new test cases.
Are you proposing to change 'em all?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-bcache" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
