Re: [PATCH v2 07/53] selftests/mm: hugetlb-shm: use kselftest framework

[Mike Rapoport <rppt@kernel.org>]

Hi Sarthak,

On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 04:50:20PM +0530, Sarthak Sharma wrote:
> Hi Mike!
> 
> On 4/18/26 4:24 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <rppt@kernel.org>
> > 
> > Convert hugetlb-shm test to use kselftest framework for reporting and
> > tracking successful and failing runs.
> > 
> > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>
> > Reviewed by: Donet Tom <donettom@linux.ibm.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <rppt@kernel.org>
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugetlb-shm.c | 46 ++++++++++++------------
> >  1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-)
> > 
> >  
> > -	dprintf("Starting the Check...");
> > +	ksft_print_msg("Starting the Check...");
> >  	for (i = 0; i < LENGTH; i++)
> >  		if (shmaddr[i] != (char)i) {
> > -			printf("\nIndex %lu mismatched\n", i);
> > -			exit(3);
> > +			ksft_print_msg("Index %lu mismatched\n", i);
> > +			shmctl(shmid, IPC_RMID, NULL);
> > +			ksft_exit_fail_msg("Data mismatch at index %lu\n", i);
> 
> ksft_print_msg() and ksft_exit_fail_msg() are printing the same thing
> here. Should we remove the ksft_print_msg() to avoid redundancy?

Yes, I'll drop the first print.
 
> I've run the test before and after applying the patch. The output has
> been correctly formatted into KTAP format with no change in results.
> 
> Tested-by: Sarthak Sharma <sarthak.sharma@arm.com>

Thanks!
 
-- 
Sincerely yours,
Mike.