> -----Original Message----- > From: lng-odp [mailto:lng-odp-boun...@lists.linaro.org] On Behalf Of Maxim > Uvarov > Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 4:34 PM > To: lng-odp@lists.linaro.org > Subject: Re: [lng-odp] [PATCH 05/10] validation: packet: print reason for > suite init failure > > On 02/06/17 15:37, Petri Savolainen wrote: > > Knowing the reason for suite init function failure helps in > > debugging. > > > > Signed-off-by: Petri Savolainen <petri.savolai...@linaro.org> > > --- > > test/common_plat/validation/api/packet/packet.c | 23 > ++++++++++++++++++----- > > 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) > > > > diff --git a/test/common_plat/validation/api/packet/packet.c > b/test/common_plat/validation/api/packet/packet.c > > index fa5206f..e3d28f6 100644 > > --- a/test/common_plat/validation/api/packet/packet.c > > +++ b/test/common_plat/validation/api/packet/packet.c > > @@ -110,8 +110,10 @@ int packet_suite_init(void) > > uint8_t data = 0; > > uint32_t i; > > > > - if (odp_pool_capability(&capa) < 0) > > + if (odp_pool_capability(&capa) < 0) { > > + printf("pool_capability failed\n"); > > return -1; > > + } > > > it's it better to return -1, -2, -3 and put debug print in upper > function? Here: > > > /* execute its init function */ > if (sinfo->pInitFunc) { > ret = sinfo->pInitFunc(); > if (ret) > return ret; > } > > or it can be CU_FAIL(msg) which already writes line number. > > > Maxim.
This is CUnit init time function, which cannot handle CU_xxx calls. At least, other validation init calls used printf directly. I think "pool_capability failed" is easier to (grep and) find than -2. -Petri
