On 07/01/2017 08:47 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> Convert to TAP13 output using ksft_ api. Child runs tests, increments test
> counters, and prints test results.
>
> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
>
> Changes since v1:
> - Add ksft_print_header()
>
> tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c | 48 +++++++++++++-------------------
> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c
> index a5a4da856dfe..563018d81c45 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c
> @@ -34,16 +34,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> fd1 = open(kpath, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC, 0644);
> pid1 = getpid();
>
> - if (fd1 < 0) {
> - perror("Can't create file");
> - ksft_exit_fail();
> - }
> + ksft_print_header();
> +
> + if (fd1 < 0)
> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("Can't create file: %s\n", strerror(errno));
>
> pid2 = fork();
> - if (pid2 < 0) {
> - perror("fork failed");
> - ksft_exit_fail();
> - }
> + if (pid2 < 0)
> + ksft_exit_fail_msg("fork() failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
>
> if (!pid2) {
> int pid2 = getpid();
> @@ -51,14 +49,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>
> fd2 = open(kpath, O_RDWR, 0644);
> if (fd2 < 0) {
> - perror("Can't open file");
> - ksft_exit_fail();
> + ksft_print_msg("Can't open file: %s\n",
> + strerror(errno));
> + exit(KSFT_FAIL);
> }
>
> /* An example of output and arguments */
> - printf("pid1: %6d pid2: %6d FD: %2ld FILES: %2ld VM: %2ld "
> - "FS: %2ld SIGHAND: %2ld IO: %2ld SYSVSEM: %2ld "
> - "INV: %2ld\n",
> + ksft_print_msg(
> + "pid1: %6d pid2: %6d FD: %2ld\n FILES: %2ld VM: %2ld FS: %2ld SIGHAND: %2ld\n IO: %2ld SYSVSEM: %2ld INV: %2ld\n",
Is it okay that there's no # after the newlines? Will that confuse test output
parsers?
> pid1, pid2,
> sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_FILE, fd1, fd2),
> sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_FILES, 0, 0),
> @@ -74,28 +72,22 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> /* This one should return same fd */
> ret = sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_FILE, fd1, fd1);
> if (ret) {
> - printf("FAIL: 0 expected but %d returned (%s)\n",
> + ksft_test_result_fail(
> + "0 expected but %d returned (%s)\n",
> ret, strerror(errno));
> - ksft_inc_fail_cnt();
> ret = -1;
> - } else {
> - printf("PASS: 0 returned as expected\n");
> - ksft_inc_pass_cnt();
> - }
> + } else
> + ksft_test_result_pass("0 returned as expected\n");
I remember Tim Bird mentioning before that the test descriptions should be
non-dynamic to not confuse diffs. What did we decide on about that?
Also specifically with this test output (seems like Tim had a similar
comment before), the output doesn't really describe the test.
Thanks,
Paul
>
> /* Compare with self */
> ret = sys_kcmp(pid1, pid1, KCMP_VM, 0, 0);
> if (ret) {
> - printf("FAIL: 0 expected but %d returned (%s)\n",
> + ksft_test_result_fail(
> + "0 expected but %d returned (%s)\n",
> ret, strerror(errno));
> - ksft_inc_fail_cnt();
> ret = -1;
> - } else {
> - printf("PASS: 0 returned as expected\n");
> - ksft_inc_pass_cnt();
> - }
> -
> - ksft_print_cnts();
> + } else
> + ksft_test_result_pass("0 returned as expected\n");
>
> if (ret)
> ksft_exit_fail();
> @@ -104,6 +96,4 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> }
>
> waitpid(pid2, &status, P_ALL);
> -
> - return ksft_exit_pass();
> }
>
--
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
