Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Date:   Tue, 3 Nov 2020 13:18:10 +0100
From:   Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To:     Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc:     Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
        Arpitha Raghunandan <98.arpi@gmail.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        Petr Mladek <pmladek@suse.com>,
        Steven Rostedt <rostedt@goodmis.org>,
        Sergey Senozhatsky <sergey.senozhatsky@gmail.com>,
        Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
        Alexandre Belloni <alexandre.belloni@bootlin.com>,
        Randy Dunlap <rdunlap@infradead.org>,
        Ilya Dryomov <idryomov@gmail.com>, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] lib: Convert test_printf.c to KUnit
Message-ID: <20201103121810.GA1054984@kroah.com>
References: <20201103111049.51916-1-98.arpi@gmail.com>
 <20201103113353.GC4077@smile.fi.intel.com>
 <20201103115223.GA268796@kroah.com>
 <CAHp75Vcw8Hyaks9ZbRfz7HhBzPM2cJxR4ypye5PwcZqY9rsYhA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75Vcw8Hyaks9ZbRfz7HhBzPM2cJxR4ypye5PwcZqY9rsYhA@mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 02:06:23PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 1:54 PM Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 01:33:53PM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2020 at 04:40:49PM +0530, Arpitha Raghunandan wrote:
> 
> ...
> 
> > > Better, indeed.
> > >
> > > But can be this improved to have a cumulative statistics, like showing only
> > > number of total, succeeded, failed with details of the latter ones?
> >
> > Is that the proper test output format?  We have a standard...
> 
> I dunno. I'm asking...
> We have few possibilities here: a) let it go like above, b) use the
> cumulative statistics, c) if there is no such available, implement and
> use it, d) ...

We have a standard, please use it.

greg k-h