On 4/20/22 13:46, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 20/04/2022 13.38, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
On 4/19/22 20:58, Thomas Huth wrote:
The tprot test currently does not have any output (unless one of the TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user whether a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or not. Let's make this a little bit more user-friendly and include some TAP output via the kselftests.h interface.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth thuth@redhat.com
tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++---- 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c index c097b9db495e..baba883d7a6d 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
We're not committing ourselves to any particular test output, are we? Your patch considers the stages used for test setup tests themselves, which I'm fine with, but would not want to commit to keeping that way forever.
No commitment - just somewhat more verbose output. If you don't like it, we can also drop this patch, or do it in another way, I don't mind too much.
I'm fine with it then. With the braces changed:
Reviewed-by: Janis Schoetterl-Glausch scgl@linux.ibm.com
+#define HOST_SYNC(vmp, stage) \ +{ \ + HOST_SYNC_NO_TAP(vmp, stage); \ + ksft_test_result_pass("" #stage "\n"); \ +}
It should not be a problem, but is there any reason you're not using do { ... } while(0) or ({ ... }) instead of just braces?
Yes, that would be better, indeed.
Thomas