Re: [PATCH v2] selftests: x86: conform test to TAP format output

[Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>]

This patch brings just readability implements by using kselftests wrappers
instead of manual pass/fail test cases counting. It has been on mailing
list from several months now. Please can someone ack or nack?

On 7/1/24 1:38 PM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
> Adding more reviewers. Please review.
> 
> On 5/28/24 10:05 AM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>> Kind reminder
>>
>> On 4/26/24 3:18 PM, Muhammad Usama Anjum wrote:
>>> Conform the layout, informational and status messages to TAP. No
>>> functional change is intended other than the layout of output messages.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>
>>> ---
>>> Changes since v1:
>>> - No changes, sending it again as got no response on v1 even after weeks
>>> ---
>>>  tools/testing/selftests/x86/vdso_restorer.c | 29 +++++++++------------
>>>  1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/vdso_restorer.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/vdso_restorer.c
>>> index fe99f24341554..f621167424a9c 100644
>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/vdso_restorer.c
>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/vdso_restorer.c
>>> @@ -21,6 +21,7 @@
>>>  #include <unistd.h>
>>>  #include <syscall.h>
>>>  #include <sys/syscall.h>
>>> +#include "../kselftest.h"
>>>  
>>>  /* Open-code this -- the headers are too messy to easily use them. */
>>>  struct real_sigaction {
>>> @@ -44,17 +45,19 @@ static void handler_without_siginfo(int sig)
>>>  
>>>  int main()
>>>  {
>>> -	int nerrs = 0;
>>>  	struct real_sigaction sa;
>>>  
>>> +	ksft_print_header();
>>> +	ksft_set_plan(2);
>>> +
>>>  	void *vdso = dlopen("linux-vdso.so.1",
>>>  			    RTLD_LAZY | RTLD_LOCAL | RTLD_NOLOAD);
>>>  	if (!vdso)
>>>  		vdso = dlopen("linux-gate.so.1",
>>>  			      RTLD_LAZY | RTLD_LOCAL | RTLD_NOLOAD);
>>>  	if (!vdso) {
>>> -		printf("[SKIP]\tFailed to find vDSO.  Tests are not expected to work.\n");
>>> -		return 0;
>>> +		ksft_print_msg("[SKIP]\tFailed to find vDSO. Tests are not expected to work.\n");
>>> +		return KSFT_SKIP;
>>>  	}
>>>  
>>>  	memset(&sa, 0, sizeof(sa));
>>> @@ -62,21 +65,16 @@ int main()
>>>  	sa.flags = SA_SIGINFO;
>>>  	sa.restorer = NULL;	/* request kernel-provided restorer */
>>>  
>>> -	printf("[RUN]\tRaise a signal, SA_SIGINFO, sa.restorer == NULL\n");
>>> +	ksft_print_msg("Raise a signal, SA_SIGINFO, sa.restorer == NULL\n");
>>>  
>>>  	if (syscall(SYS_rt_sigaction, SIGUSR1, &sa, NULL, 8) != 0)
>>>  		err(1, "raw rt_sigaction syscall");
>>>  
>>>  	raise(SIGUSR1);
>>>  
>>> -	if (handler_called) {
>>> -		printf("[OK]\tSA_SIGINFO handler returned successfully\n");
>>> -	} else {
>>> -		printf("[FAIL]\tSA_SIGINFO handler was not called\n");
>>> -		nerrs++;
>>> -	}
>>> +	ksft_test_result(handler_called, "SA_SIGINFO handler returned\n");
>>>  
>>> -	printf("[RUN]\tRaise a signal, !SA_SIGINFO, sa.restorer == NULL\n");
>>> +	ksft_print_msg("Raise a signal, !SA_SIGINFO, sa.restorer == NULL\n");
>>>  
>>>  	sa.flags = 0;
>>>  	sa.handler = handler_without_siginfo;
>>> @@ -86,10 +84,7 @@ int main()
>>>  
>>>  	raise(SIGUSR1);
>>>  
>>> -	if (handler_called) {
>>> -		printf("[OK]\t!SA_SIGINFO handler returned successfully\n");
>>> -	} else {
>>> -		printf("[FAIL]\t!SA_SIGINFO handler was not called\n");
>>> -		nerrs++;
>>> -	}
>>> +	ksft_test_result(handler_called, "SA_SIGINFO handler returned\n");
>>> +
>>> +	ksft_finished();
>>>  }
>>
> 

-- 
BR,
Muhammad Usama Anjum