On 06/14/2017 07:26 PM, Paul Elder wrote:
> On 06/15/2017 09:28 AM, Bird, Timothy wrote:
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Shuah Khan on Thursday, June 15, 2017 9:15 AM
>>>
>>> Hi Tim/Paul,
>>>
>>> On 06/13/2017 08:46 PM, Paul Elder wrote:
>>>> On 06/14/2017 04:50 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
>>>
>>> snip - removed the rest.
>>>
>>>>>> >> +
>>>>>> >> static inline int ksft_exit_skip(void)
>>>>>> >> {
>>>>>> >> + ksft_print_cnts();
>>>>>> >> exit(KSFT_SKIP);
>>>>>> >> }
>>>
>>> I started working on porting breakpoints/breakpoint_test_arm64.c
>>> test for two reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. I do have a arm board to test the changes
>>> 2. I want to give the API a test drive and get a feel for it.
>>>
>>> Looks TAP13 says SKIP reason should be reported.
>>>
>>> https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftestanything.org%2Ftap-version-13-specification.html&data=01%7C01%7Cpaul.elder%40pitt.edu%7C58a5011baeaa4a61f2da08d4b385709d%7C9ef9f489e0a04eeb87cc3a526112fd0d%7C1&sdata=dxLpItTcxfm1MA4jCrallXtDFC7FsPyYTnUJDa0AORw%3D&reserved=0
>>>
>>> "Skipping tests
>>> If the directive starts with # SKIP, the test is counted as having been skipped.
>>> If the whole test file succeeds, the count of skipped tests is included in the
>>> generated output. The harness should report the text after # SKIP\S*\s+ as a
>>> reason for skipping.
>>>
>>> ok 23 # skip Insufficient flogiston pressure.
>>> Similarly, one can include an explanation in a plan line, emitted if the test
>>> file is skipped completely:
>>>
>>> 1..0 # Skipped: WWW::Mechanize not installed"
>>>
>>> If I am reading the above correctly, ksft_exit_skip() should print
>>> reason for skipping, i which case, it can just be changed to take
>>> msg buffer.
>>>
>>> I can make that change when I send in the
>>> breakpoints/breakpoint_test_arm64.c
>>> port.
>>>
>>> Does that sound reasonable to you or am I reading it wrong?
>>
>> That sounds right to me. IMHO I don't believe that the specification
>> is explicit that the skip string is required (but different people might
>> read this differently). Therefore I would make the argument optional
>> (meaning that if the user provides a NULL argument, then
>> no reason string is added to the skip line). However, I think you can have
>> whatever rules you want for kselftest. If you want to mandate that
>> a reason is provided for the skip when a caller uses this API, then I
>> think that's reasonable also.
>> -- Tim
>>
> That sounds reasonable to me too. At the moment I have put in message output
> for skipping individual tests, but you are right that ksft_exit_skip() does
> not output any message at the moment. Since it's part of kselftests.h, I could
> take care of it in the next revision, with Tim's suggested implementation.
>
> I'm not sure what the specification means by outputting the count of skipped
> tests, though.
>
I think it is the skip count we already have.
thanks,
-- Shuah
--
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
