On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:57:38PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 03.06.25 17:22, Mark Brown wrote:
Like I've been saying this is just the final test result, in this case I would expect that for the actual thing we're trying to test any confusion would be addressed in the name of the test so that it's clear what it was trying to test. So adding "Leak from parent to child" to the name of all the tests?
I agree that printing something in case KSFT_PASS does not make sense indeed.
But if something goes wrong (KSFT_FAIL/KSFT_SKIP) I would expect a reason in all cases.
IIRC kselftest_harness.h behaves that way:
That's mostly just it being chatty because it uses an assert based idiom rather than explicit pass/fail reports, it's a lot less common for things written directly to kselftest.h where it's for example fairly common to see a result detected directly in a ksft_result() call. That does tend to be quite helpful when looking at the results, you don't need to dig out the logs so often.