> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Elder on Friday, June 30, 2017 7:28 PM
> On 07/01/2017 08:47 AM, Shuah Khan wrote:
> > Convert to TAP13 output using ksft_ api. Child runs tests, increments test
> > counters, and prints test results.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shua...@osg.samsung.com>
> > ---
> >
> > Changes since v1:
> > - Add ksft_print_header()
> >
> > tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c | 48 +++++++++++++-------------
> ------
> > 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 29 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c
> > index a5a4da856dfe..563018d81c45 100644
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kcmp/kcmp_test.c
> > @@ -34,16 +34,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > fd1 = open(kpath, O_RDWR | O_CREAT | O_TRUNC, 0644);
> > pid1 = getpid();
> >
> > - if (fd1 < 0) {
> > - perror("Can't create file");
> > - ksft_exit_fail();
> > - }
> > + ksft_print_header();
> > +
> > + if (fd1 < 0)
> > + ksft_exit_fail_msg("Can't create file: %s\n", strerror(errno));
> >
> > pid2 = fork();
> > - if (pid2 < 0) {
> > - perror("fork failed");
> > - ksft_exit_fail();
> > - }
> > + if (pid2 < 0)
> > + ksft_exit_fail_msg("fork() failed: %s\n", strerror(errno));
> >
> > if (!pid2) {
> > int pid2 = getpid();
> > @@ -51,14 +49,14 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> >
> > fd2 = open(kpath, O_RDWR, 0644);
> > if (fd2 < 0) {
> > - perror("Can't open file");
> > - ksft_exit_fail();
> > + ksft_print_msg("Can't open file: %s\n",
> > + strerror(errno));
> > + exit(KSFT_FAIL);
> > }
> >
> > /* An example of output and arguments */
> > - printf("pid1: %6d pid2: %6d FD: %2ld FILES: %2ld VM: %2ld "
> > - "FS: %2ld SIGHAND: %2ld IO: %2ld SYSVSEM: %2ld "
> > - "INV: %2ld\n",
> > + ksft_print_msg(
> > + "pid1: %6d pid2: %6d FD: %2ld\n FILES: %2ld VM:
> %2ld FS: %2ld SIGHAND: %2ld\n IO: %2ld SYSVSEM: %2ld INV: %2ld\n",
> Is it okay that there's no # after the newlines? Will that confuse test output
> parsers?
Probably. I envisioned ksft_print_msg() as parsing the string for newlines,
and replacing them with: "\n# ", to work around this problem.
I can code something up if desired.
>
> > pid1, pid2,
> > sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_FILE, fd1, fd2),
> > sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_FILES, 0, 0),
> > @@ -74,28 +72,22 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
> > /* This one should return same fd */
> > ret = sys_kcmp(pid1, pid2, KCMP_FILE, fd1, fd1);
> > if (ret) {
> > - printf("FAIL: 0 expected but %d returned (%s)\n",
> > + ksft_test_result_fail(
> > + "0 expected but %d returned (%s)\n",
> > ret, strerror(errno));
> > - ksft_inc_fail_cnt();
> > ret = -1;
> > - } else {
> > - printf("PASS: 0 returned as expected\n");
> > - ksft_inc_pass_cnt();
> > - }
> > + } else
> > + ksft_test_result_pass("0 returned as expected\n");
> I remember Tim Bird mentioning before that the test descriptions should be
> non-dynamic to not confuse diffs. What did we decide on about that?
>
> Also specifically with this test output (seems like Tim had a similar
> comment before), the output doesn't really describe the test.
Yeah - I don't like this as a test description.
I would restructure this as:
+ const char *test_name = "kcmp with KCMP_FILE"
...
- printf("FAIL: 0 expected but %d returned (%s)\n",
+ ksft_test_result_fail(test_name);
+ ksft_print_msg("0 expected but %d returned (%s)\n",
+ ret, strerror(errno));
...
- (minus stuff)
+ } else
+ ksft_test_result_pass(test_name);
And do a similar re-structuring, using test_name, and adding
diagnostic information only on failure (with ksft_print_msg),
with:
const char *test_name = "kcmp with KCMP_VM"
-- Tim
