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 8A208D5CC9F for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 12:15:50 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 014AE3CAE4D for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 13:15:49 +0100 (CET) Received: from in-4.smtp.seeweb.it (in-4.smtp.seeweb.it [217.194.8.4]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (secp384r1) server-digest SHA384) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA2FF3CAE07 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 13:15:33 +0100 (CET) Authentication-Results: in-4.smtp.seeweb.it; spf=pass (sender SPF authorized) smtp.mailfrom=suse.cz (client-ip=195.135.223.131; helo=smtp-out2.suse.de; envelope-from=chrubis@suse.cz; receiver=lists.linux.it) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [195.135.223.131]) (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-4.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 850ED100FB18 for ; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 13:15:33 +0100 (CET) Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (unknown [10.150.64.97]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C2ADE1FB8A; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 12:15:32 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1730290532; h=from:from: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=d0P4iUnWmeZUYCxP4b7HrgC1D++4wwt4fNRp3wttlzk=; b=b5d+PF11kGQDbZUfkIU9295sTW7BI6zKSxthMxIi8hhECH5EjFV+m0RJHh99uuWQZIy2LN tfbCTwQ/q9Q8Lm1kcuMMSyCAFQAyv2prYFStCjwcQZxvI7TRVPsvB4av0P0tJ8HRw0oTdQ RvkrXgVVIqeh6AsLhKR8bql786C7UlQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1730290532; h=from:from: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=d0P4iUnWmeZUYCxP4b7HrgC1D++4wwt4fNRp3wttlzk=; b=RO8a9OvjOAV7hR8obhWRKCnLIyRmnDJSiz561rckM3mUYYK89bOrsUerIqVlsNtbGjrIFC D0tJk5XjQdqs3cCw== Authentication-Results: smtp-out2.suse.de; none DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1730290532; h=from:from: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=d0P4iUnWmeZUYCxP4b7HrgC1D++4wwt4fNRp3wttlzk=; b=b5d+PF11kGQDbZUfkIU9295sTW7BI6zKSxthMxIi8hhECH5EjFV+m0RJHh99uuWQZIy2LN tfbCTwQ/q9Q8Lm1kcuMMSyCAFQAyv2prYFStCjwcQZxvI7TRVPsvB4av0P0tJ8HRw0oTdQ RvkrXgVVIqeh6AsLhKR8bql786C7UlQ= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1730290532; h=from:from: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=d0P4iUnWmeZUYCxP4b7HrgC1D++4wwt4fNRp3wttlzk=; b=RO8a9OvjOAV7hR8obhWRKCnLIyRmnDJSiz561rckM3mUYYK89bOrsUerIqVlsNtbGjrIFC D0tJk5XjQdqs3cCw== Received: from imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABED813AD9; Wed, 30 Oct 2024 12:15:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([2a07:de40:b281:106:10:150:64:167]) by imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org with ESMTPSA id gLLcKGQjImfrWAAAD6G6ig (envelope-from ); Wed, 30 Oct 2024 12:15:32 +0000 Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2024 13:15:32 +0100 From: Cyril Hrubis To: Li Wang Message-ID: References: <20241030084558.195297-1-liwang@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.30 / 50.00]; BAYES_HAM(-3.00)[99.99%]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.20)[-1.000]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; MISSING_XM_UA(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_SIGNED(0.00)[suse.cz:s=susede2_rsa,suse.cz:s=susede2_ed25519]; FUZZY_BLOCKED(0.00)[rspamd.com]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_ALL(0.00)[]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; DBL_BLOCKED_OPENRESOLVER(0.00)[yuki.lan:mid, suse.cz:email, imap1.dmz-prg2.suse.org:helo] X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 1.0.3 at in-4.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH] lib: Print failure hints only once to reduce log duplication 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: , 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! > > The LTP test currently prints failure hints multiple times if a test > > encounters several TFAIL or TBROK results. This leads to unnecessarily > > verbose and duplicated logs. > > > > This patch modifies the `print_failure_hints()` function to ensure that > > failure hints are printed only once per test run. By setting `show_failure_hints` > > to 0 after the first print, subsequent calls to `print_failure_hints()` > > will not produce redundant output. > > Hmm, we do call print_failure_hints() from do_exit() that calls exit() > at the end of the function. We shouldn't print the hints twice, what do > I miss? Ah, right, we have two if () conditions that call the function in there, so yes, we may print it twice. Reviewed-by: Cyril Hrubis -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp