From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E7F8BC433EF for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:31:46 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 678EC3CA0F3 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:31:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (in-5.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::5]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C27173C9DE5 for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:31:34 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.220.29]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-5.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 48B206015AB for ; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:31:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2D2D11F37D; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:31:33 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1645180293; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=F4D+EJcQL1x/WHCf4PC0bIN+dL4k9G/Vkctty3MOL8g=; b=n219V83WOOiDsoq//0LVna9fRiaR4A5j0+gYsYqASEWsvzU0tjedIlqwgRR5SmREV+VGXY 0yBX3Uj1I1NZ25RYYY41D4sHhiMC3UJ7GB8Zf23nCAkhPUeUjP41JHNj6WOu2qZFjLiVSf JKtMFOXDxtGvN18sAoKtHQRGLfcFrrE= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1645180293; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=F4D+EJcQL1x/WHCf4PC0bIN+dL4k9G/Vkctty3MOL8g=; b=65Zg4waCZlHNc5mgTQ/kay6G3wbzeNZDgbHD3bKalcoGbmT6uWxBvk+t4n2pRRT1h4MkV7 kaicni3+CSJcCEAg== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0864913C47; Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:31:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id GDaXO4R1D2KSDAAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Fri, 18 Feb 2022 10:31:32 +0000 Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2022 11:31:31 +0100 From: Petr Vorel To: Cyril Hrubis Message-ID: References: <20220217142730.19726-1-chrubis@suse.cz> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-5.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] test_macros: TST_EXP_EXPR() add auto stringification X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Cyril, > Hi! > > Reviewed-by: Petr Vorel > > Good idea. > It occured to me that this is probably not the best result though, since > in the case of the failure it does not print the expected and actual > value. So maybe it would be better to add TST_EXP_EQ() macro instead. I > will send a patch later on. I wonder can't we have both - print stringified parameters and also their values? Would it be too confusing? > > BTW I'm thinking to add some comments to "top level" macros. > > because it's getting hard to read these macros. > Well yes, it's getting a bit hard to read indeed. I mean it's good to have documented in our wiki. But even we document all macros most of us will endup reading the header, thus why useful to document at least end user ("top level") macros. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp