On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:47 PM Rasmus Villemoes
<linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 17:53, Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:02 AM Andy Shevchenko
<andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
I have just quickly tested this before leaving for a week.
And I am fine with the result.
Thanks, Petr, for demonstrating how it looks in a failure case.
Seems reasonable to me. But I want a consensus with Rasmus.
I have a local v4 where I've added the same enhancement as the scanf
patches so that assertions log the line in the top-level test.
I'll wait for Rasmus' reply before sending.
I think all my concerns are addressed, with the lines printed in case
of error telling what is wrong and not that memcmp() evaluating to 1
instead of 0, and with the final free-form comment including that "ran
448 tests". If you feel that word is confusing when there's
"obviously" only 28 "test" being done, feel free to change that to
"did 448 checks" or "did 448 individual checks" any other better
wording.
Rasmus
Personally, I don't feel strongly about this wording, so I'm hewing
close to the original:
....
ok 25 flags
ok 26 errptr
ok 27 fwnode_pointer
ok 28 fourcc_pointer
# printf: ran 448 tests
# printf: pass:28 fail:0 skip:0 total:28
# Totals: pass:28 fail:0 skip:0 total:28
ok 1 printf
I'll send v4 momentarily. Thanks, all!
