Hi Sarthak, On Wed, Apr 22, 2026 at 04:50:20PM +0530, Sarthak Sharma wrote: > Hi Mike! > > On 4/18/26 4:24 PM, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > From: "Mike Rapoport (Microsoft)" <[email protected]> > > > > Convert hugetlb-shm test to use kselftest framework for reporting and > > tracking successful and failing runs. > > > > Reviewed-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]> > > Reviewed by: Donet Tom <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Mike Rapoport (Microsoft) <[email protected]> > > --- > > tools/testing/selftests/mm/hugetlb-shm.c | 46 ++++++++++++------------ > > 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) > > > > > > - dprintf("Starting the Check..."); > > + ksft_print_msg("Starting the Check..."); > > for (i = 0; i < LENGTH; i++) > > if (shmaddr[i] != (char)i) { > > - printf("\nIndex %lu mismatched\n", i); > > - exit(3); > > + ksft_print_msg("Index %lu mismatched\n", i); > > + shmctl(shmid, IPC_RMID, NULL); > > + ksft_exit_fail_msg("Data mismatch at index %lu\n", i); > > ksft_print_msg() and ksft_exit_fail_msg() are printing the same thing > here. Should we remove the ksft_print_msg() to avoid redundancy?
Yes, I'll drop the first print. > I've run the test before and after applying the patch. The output has > been correctly formatted into KTAP format with no change in results. > > Tested-by: Sarthak Sharma <[email protected]> Thanks! -- Sincerely yours, Mike.
