Hi Paul,
On 06/13/2017 11:54 AM, Paul Elder wrote:
> On 06/12/2017 03:56 PM, Greg Kroah-Hartman wrote:
>> From: Paul Elder <paul.elder@xxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Add TAP13 conformat output functions to kselftest.h.
>>
>> Also add exit functions that output TAP13 exiting text, as well as
>> functions to keep track of testing progress.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Elder <paul.elder@xxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Alice Ferrazzi <alice.ferrazzi@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> v2: Just use the standard function names, no _tap suffix - Alice
>>
>> tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>> 1 file changed, 48 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> index ef1c80d67ac7..1d874a50d957 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> @@ -31,38 +31,82 @@ struct ksft_count {
>>
>> static struct ksft_count ksft_cnt;
>>
>> +static inline int ksft_test_num(void)
>> +{
>> + return ksft_cnt.ksft_pass + ksft_cnt.ksft_fail +
>> + ksft_cnt.ksft_xfail + ksft_cnt.ksft_xpass +
>> + ksft_cnt.ksft_xskip;
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline void ksft_inc_pass_cnt(void) { ksft_cnt.ksft_pass++; }
>> static inline void ksft_inc_fail_cnt(void) { ksft_cnt.ksft_fail++; }
>> static inline void ksft_inc_xfail_cnt(void) { ksft_cnt.ksft_xfail++; }
>> static inline void ksft_inc_xpass_cnt(void) { ksft_cnt.ksft_xpass++; }
>> static inline void ksft_inc_xskip_cnt(void) { ksft_cnt.ksft_xskip++; }
>>
>> +static inline void ksft_print_header(void)
>> +{
>> + printf("TAP version 13\n");
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline void ksft_print_cnts(void)
>> {
>> - printf("Pass: %d Fail: %d Xfail: %d Xpass: %d, Xskip: %d\n",
>> - ksft_cnt.ksft_pass, ksft_cnt.ksft_fail,
>> - ksft_cnt.ksft_xfail, ksft_cnt.ksft_xpass,
>> - ksft_cnt.ksft_xskip);
>> + printf("1..%d\n", ksft_test_num());
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void ksft_test_result_pass(const char *msg)
>> +{
>> + ksft_cnt.ksft_pass++;
>> + printf("ok %d %s\n", ksft_test_num(), msg);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void ksft_test_result_fail(const char *msg)
>> +{
>> + ksft_cnt.ksft_fail++;
>> + printf("not ok %d %s\n", ksft_test_num(), msg);
>> +}
>> +
>> +static inline void ksft_test_result_skip(const char *msg)
>> +{
>> + ksft_cnt.ksft_xskip++;
>> + printf("ok %d # skip %s\n", ksft_test_num(), msg);
>> }
>
> I just realized; the test count increments within the these three functions
> (the ksft_test_result_* functions) should use the actual incrementor function
> calls (ksft_inc_*_cnt) instead of directly incrementing them, shouldn't they?
I added the increment functions for flexibility. If a test
chooses to increment individual pass/fail/xfai/xpass counts
and then print summary.
>
> Although I suppose it's readable enough that it's fine
>
> As far as I can tell as long as we have these ksft_test_result_* functions
> that increment the test count *and* output the test result, the incrementor
> functions aren't going to be used a lot, if ever.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Also what's the difference between fail/xfail and pass/xpass?
xfail means that the test ix expected to fail but passed
xpass means that the test is expected pass, but failed.
thanks,
-- Shuah
>
> Thank you,
>
> Paul
>
>> static inline int ksft_exit_pass(void)
>> {
>> + ksft_print_cnts();
>> exit(KSFT_PASS);
>> }
>> +
>> static inline int ksft_exit_fail(void)
>> {
>> + printf("Bail out!\n");
>> + ksft_print_cnts();
>> exit(KSFT_FAIL);
>> }
>> +
>> +static inline int ksft_exit_fail_msg(const char *msg)
>> +{
>> + printf("Bail out! %s\n", msg);
>> + ksft_print_cnts();
>> + exit(KSFT_FAIL);
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline int ksft_exit_xfail(void)
>> {
>> + ksft_print_cnts();
>> exit(KSFT_XFAIL);
>> }
>> +
>> static inline int ksft_exit_xpass(void)
>> {
>> + ksft_print_cnts();
>> exit(KSFT_XPASS);
>> }
>> +
>> static inline int ksft_exit_skip(void)
>> {
>> + ksft_print_cnts();
>> exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>> }
>>
>>
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
