On Thu, Feb 29, 2024 at 1:03 AM Muhammad Usama Anjum
<usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On 2/28/24 11:51 PM, T.J. Mercier wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 4:21 AM Muhammad Usama Anjum
> > <usama.anjum@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > ..
> >
> >> +static int numer_of_heaps(void)
> >> +{
> >> + DIR *d = opendir(DEVPATH);
> >> + struct dirent *dir;
> >> + int heaps = 0;
> >> +
> >> + while ((dir = readdir(d))) {
> >> + if (!strncmp(dir->d_name, ".", 2))
> >> + continue;
> >> + if (!strncmp(dir->d_name, "..", 3))
> >> + continue;
> >> + heaps++;
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + return heaps;
> >> }
> >>
> >> int main(void)
> >> {
> >> - DIR *d;
> >> struct dirent *dir;
> >> - int ret = -1;
> >> + DIR *d;
> >> +
> >> + ksft_print_header();
> >>
> >> d = opendir(DEVPATH);
> >> if (!d) {
> >> - printf("No %s directory?\n", DEVPATH);
> >> - return -1;
> >> + ksft_print_msg("No %s directory?\n", DEVPATH);
> >> + return KSFT_SKIP;
> >> }
> >>
> >> - while ((dir = readdir(d)) != NULL) {
> >> + ksft_set_plan(9 * numer_of_heaps());
> >
> > Shouldn't this be 5 (one for each test_alloc_* below) instead of 9?
> This number 9 doesn't represent number of functions. It represents the
> number of test-cases. One function may have multiple of these. (Hence this
> number is equal to the number of ksft_test_results_*() functions calls).
Ah yes, thanks.
