From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2020 08:05:06 +0100 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 2/4] lib: Check also flags for tst_res() In-Reply-To: References: <20200227163922.317-1-pvorel@suse.cz> <20200227163922.317-2-pvorel@suse.cz> Message-ID: <20200228070506.GA23156@dell5510> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Li, > Thanks for your work on this! Thanks for your review! ... > > +++ b/include/tst_common.h > > @@ -77,4 +77,7 @@ > > #define TST_BRK_SUPPORTS_ONLY_TCONF_TBROK(condition) \ > > do { ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2 * !!(condition)])); } while (0) > > +#define TST_RES_SUPPORTS_TCONF_TFAIL_TINFO_TPASS_TWARN(condition) \ > > + TST_BRK_SUPPORTS_ONLY_TCONF_TBROK(condition) > To be honest, this looks verbose and confusing a little. I'm thinking can > we just add a prefix TST_ to the kernel macro and use it directly? > e.g > #define TST_BUILD_BUG_ON(condition) \ > do { ((void)sizeof(char[1 - 2 * !!(condition)])); } while (0) Yep, I was also thinking to get back to the original name BUILD_BUG_ON(). TST_BUILD_BUG_ON() is even better (although I considered TST_ as part of public API, this is internal implementation). Kind regards, Petr