On 03.06.25 17:22, Mark Brown wrote:
On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 05:06:17PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
On 03.06.25 16:58, Mark Brown wrote:
Like I said I suspect the test name is just unclear here...
I would hope we find some mechanical replacement.
E.g.,
ksft_test_result_pass("No leak from parent into child\n");
becomes
ksft_print_msg("No leak from parent into child\n"); log_test_result(KSFT_PASS);
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:
$ ./pfnmap TAP version 13 1..6 # Starting 6 tests from 1 test cases. # RUN pfnmap.madvise_disallowed ... # SKIP Cannot open '/dev/mem'
Changing the tests names really sounds suboptimal, if all we want do indicate is that the final memcp revealed a leak (part of the cow test).