Re: [PATCH 5/5] kselftest: Add exit code defines

[Darren Hart <dvhart-VuQAYsv1563Yd54FQh9/CA@public.gmane.org>]

On 3/29/15, 4:44 PM, "Michael Ellerman" <mpe-Gsx/Oe8HsFggBc27wqDAHg@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 16:09 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> 
>> On 3/27/15 3:59 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
>> > On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 15:17 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> >> Define the exit codes with KSFT_PASS and similar so tests can use
>>these
>> >> directly if they choose. Also enable harnesses and other tooling to
>>use
>> >> the defines instead of hardcoding the return codes.
>> >  
>> > +1
>> > 
>> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>>b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> >> index 572c888..ef1c80d 100644
>> >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> >> @@ -13,6 +13,13 @@
>> >>  #include <stdlib.h>
>> >>  #include <unistd.h>
>> >>  
>> >> +/* define kselftest exit codes */
>> >> +#define KSFT_PASS  0
>> >> +#define KSFT_FAIL  1
>> >> +#define KSFT_XFAIL 2
>> >> +#define KSFT_XPASS 3
>> >> +#define KSFT_SKIP  4
>> >> +
>> >>  /* counters */
>> >>  struct ksft_count {
>> >>  	unsigned int ksft_pass;
>> >> @@ -40,23 +47,23 @@ static inline void ksft_print_cnts(void)
>> >>  
>> >>  static inline int ksft_exit_pass(void)
>> >>  {
>> >> -	exit(0);
>> >> +	exit(KSFT_PASS);
>> >>  }
>> > 
>> > Am I the only person who's bothered by the fact that these don't
>>actually
>> > return int?
>> 
>> That bothered me to, but I couldn't be bothered to go read the manuals
>> apparently to come up with a compelling argument :-)
>
>Yeah, obviously the compiler accepts it, but it's still a bit weird.
>
>> I also think the ksft_exit* routines should go ahead and increment the
>> counters (at least optionally) so we don't have to call two functions.
>
>But the ksft_exit_*() routines exit, so there's no point incrementing the
>counters. Unless they *also* print the counters before exiting?
>
>To be honest I think we need to decide if the selftests are going to
>speak TAP
>or xUnit or whatever, and then switch to that. In their current form these
>helpers don't help much.

Fair point. This isn't a space I'm well versed in, but some standard means
of doing this would be welcome.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center