Re: [PATCH 5/5] kselftest: Add exit code defines

[Darren Hart]

On 3/27/15 3:59 PM, Michael Ellerman wrote:
> On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 15:17 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> Define the exit codes with KSFT_PASS and similar so tests can use these
>> directly if they choose. Also enable harnesses and other tooling to use
>> the defines instead of hardcoding the return codes.
>  
> +1
> 
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> index 572c888..ef1c80d 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
>> @@ -13,6 +13,13 @@
>>  #include <stdlib.h>
>>  #include <unistd.h>
>>  
>> +/* define kselftest exit codes */
>> +#define KSFT_PASS  0
>> +#define KSFT_FAIL  1
>> +#define KSFT_XFAIL 2
>> +#define KSFT_XPASS 3
>> +#define KSFT_SKIP  4
>> +
>>  /* counters */
>>  struct ksft_count {
>>  	unsigned int ksft_pass;
>> @@ -40,23 +47,23 @@ static inline void ksft_print_cnts(void)
>>  
>>  static inline int ksft_exit_pass(void)
>>  {
>> -	exit(0);
>> +	exit(KSFT_PASS);
>>  }
> 
> Am I the only person who's bothered by the fact that these don't actually
> return int?

That bothered me to, but I couldn't be bothered to go read the manuals
apparently to come up with a compelling argument :-)

I also think the ksft_exit* routines should go ahead and increment the
counters (at least optionally) so we don't have to call two functions.

-- 
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/