[LTP] [PATCH 01/10] lib: Introduce more TEST_* macros

Li Wang
2020-11-25T13:33:29Z

On Wed, Nov 25, 2020 at 9:17 PM Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz> wrote:

> Hi!
> > > I agree to add an expected value check for TEST_PASS(), e.g
> > >
> > > #define TEST_PASS(SCALL, EXPECTED, ...)
> >
> > I would rather keep this simple case as it is, since many function
> > return zero on success and added more specialized functions if needed as
> > it was done with TEST_FD()
>

Ok.

>
> Is anyone against pushing this initial patchset as it is?
>

Another bit of concern I have is the TEST_FAIL might cause
confusion in code reading. It looks like the test will be failed here
but in finish the test report pass, maybe we'd better tell people the
failure is expected?
(that was just my feeling on TEST_FAIL at the first glance)

Or rename them to:

TEST_EXP_PASS
TEST_EXP_FAIL
TEST_EXP_FD

--
Regards,
Li Wang
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linux.it/pipermail/ltp/attachments/20201125/ac0c9a6d/attachment.htm>