On 06/28/2017 08:32 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> On 06/27/2017 11:29 AM, Paul Elder wrote:
>> Add a generic information output function: ksft_print_msg()
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Paul Elder <paul.elder@xxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>> I decided that it should use the comment output format rather than
>> yaml because yaml could be both restrictive or excessive.
>> Many tests seem to only output one simple error information string
>> (while keeping the test name constant) so wrapping that in yaml
>> seemed pointless.
>
> Agreed. yaml isn't that appropriate for selftests.
>
>>
>> tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h | 11 +++++++++++
>> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> index b156e601f478..ccc6627af468 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> @@ -55,6 +55,17 @@ static inline void ksft_print_cnts(void)
>> printf("1..%d\n", ksft_test_num());
>> }
>>
>> +static inline void ksft_print_msg(const char *msg, ...)
>> +{
>> + va_list args;
>> +
>> + va_start(args, msg);
>> + printf("# ");
>> + vprintf(msg, args);
>> + printf("\n");
> My concern with appending newline here is that we will end up with two.
> Users will have to know to not add the newline - it is a general practice
> to add it, so users will have to remember to not add it.
I did not realize that adding newlines was the general practice. I thought that
just for these ksft_* output functions we could make them all not require newlines,
like perror().
Should I remove the newlines from all the other ksft_* output functions as well?
Thank you,
Paul
>
>> + va_end(args);
>> +}
>> +
>> static inline void ksft_test_result_pass(const char *msg, ...)
>> {
>> va_list args;
>>
>
> 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
