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.
+#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
