On 4/20/22 13:46, Thomas Huth wrote:
> On 20/04/2022 13.38, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
>> On 4/19/22 20:58, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>> The tprot test currently does not have any output (unless one of
>>> the TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user
>>> whether a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or
>>> not. Let's make this a little bit more user-friendly and include
>>> some TAP output via the kselftests.h interface.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>> ---
>>> tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++----
>>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
>>> index c097b9db495e..baba883d7a6d 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
>>
>> We're not committing ourselves to any particular test output, are we?
>> Your patch considers the stages used for test setup tests themselves,
>> which I'm fine with, but would not want to commit to keeping that way forever.
>
> No commitment - just somewhat more verbose output. If you don't like it, we can also drop this patch, or do it in another way, I don't mind too much.
I'm fine with it then.
With the braces changed:
Reviewed-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>>> +#define HOST_SYNC(vmp, stage) \
>>> +{ \
>>> + HOST_SYNC_NO_TAP(vmp, stage); \
>>> + ksft_test_result_pass("" #stage "\n"); \
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> It should not be a problem, but is there any reason you're not using
>> do { ... } while(0) or ({ ... }) instead of just braces?
>
> Yes, that would be better, indeed.
>
> Thomas
>
