Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: s390: selftests: Use TAP interface in the tprot test

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

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@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   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