From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Cyril Hrubis <chrubis@suse.cz>
Date: Wed, 25 Nov 2020 16:57:16 +0100
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 01/10] lib: Introduce more TEST_* macros
In-Reply-To: <CAEemH2dWwLD-J+cP6mJ3LAHcbGBtZ+ZaUMBiBZBDBsyK-q8Zww@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20201113131428.13199-1-chrubis@suse.cz>
 <20201113131428.13199-2-chrubis@suse.cz>
 <20201113202828.GA2229@pevik>
 <CAEemH2fXD-gFF_7PogAPB1txUrgQmmzeK8p=MaMSn1zam0YeVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20201119130824.GC12628@yuki.lan> <20201125131803.GB30149@yuki.lan>
 <CAEemH2dWwLD-J+cP6mJ3LAHcbGBtZ+ZaUMBiBZBDBsyK-q8Zww@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20201125155716.GA5358@yuki.lan>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

Hi!
> > 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

Fair enough, let's rename them like this.

Any other concerns?

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz