Hi,
On 2024-01-26 at 10:58:04 -0800, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>
>
>On 1/25/2024 4:14 AM, Ilpo Järvinen wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Jan 2024, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>
>
>>> + fp = fopen(file_path, "r");
>>> + if (!fp) {
>>> + snprintf(reason, sizeof(reason), "Error in opening %s file\n", filename);
>>> + ksft_perror(reason);
>>
>> Was this the conclusion of the kstf_perror() discussion with Reinette? I
>> expected a bit different outcome when I stopped following it...
>>
>> In any case, it would be nice though if ksft_perror() (or some kselftest.h
>> function yet to be added with a different name) would accept full printf
>> interface and just add the errno string into the end of the string so one
>> would not need to build constructs like this at all.
>>
>> It will require a bit of macro trickery into kselftest.h. I don't know how
>> it should handle the case where somebody just passes a char pointer to it,
>> not a string literal, but I guess it would just throw an error while
>> compiling if somebody tries to do that as the macro string literal
>> concatenation could not build useful/compilable token.
>>
>> It would make these prints informative enough to become actually useful
>> without needed to resort to preparing the string in advance which seems
>> to be required almost every single case with the current interface.
>
>I think this can be accomplished with a new:
> void ksft_vprint_msg(const char *msg, va_list args)
>
>... but ksft_perror() does conform to perror() and I expect that having one
>support variable number of arguments while the other does to cause confusion.
>
>To support variable number of arguments with errno I'd propose just to use
>ksft_print_msg() with strerror(errno), errno as the arguments (or even %m
>that that errno handling within ksft_print_msg() aims to support). This does
>indeed seem to be the custom in other tests.
Does something like this look okay?
fp = fopen(file_path, "r");
if (!fp) {
ksft_print_msg("Error in opening %s\n: %m\n", file_path);
return -1;
}
The '%m' seems to work fine but doesn't print errno's number code. Do you want
me to add errno after '%m' so it is the same as ksft_perror()? I looked through
some other tests where '%m' is used, and only few ones add errno with '%d'.
>Reinette
--
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman
