Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Message-ID: <f3989523-bed1-d9d4-2007-19de8ba4d403@redhat.com>
Date:   Wed, 20 Apr 2022 13:46:33 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] KVM: s390: selftests: Use TAP interface in the
 tprot test
Content-Language: en-US
To:     Janis Schoetterl-Glausch <scgl@linux.ibm.com>, kvm@vger.kernel.org,
        Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@linux.ibm.com>,
        Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>,
        Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@linux.ibm.com>
Cc:     linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
        Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, linux-s390@vger.kernel.org
References: <20220419185857.128351-1-thuth@redhat.com>
 <20220419185857.128351-4-thuth@redhat.com>
 <267dc999-edc6-c8fc-b177-e06fb2d259b4@linux.ibm.com>
From:   Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <267dc999-edc6-c8fc-b177-e06fb2d259b4@linux.ibm.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Precedence: bulk

On 20/04/2022 13.38, Janis Schoetterl-Glausch wrote:
> On 4/19/22 20:58, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> The tprot test currently does not have any output (unless one of
>> the TEST_ASSERT statement fails), so it's hard to say for a user
>> whether a certain new sub-test has been included in the binary or
>> not. Let's make this a little bit more user-friendly and include
>> some TAP output via the kselftests.h interface.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>   tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c | 28 +++++++++++++++++++----
>>   1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
>> index c097b9db495e..baba883d7a6d 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kvm/s390x/tprot.c
> 
> We're not committing ourselves to any particular test output, are we?
> Your patch considers the stages used for test setup tests themselves,
> which I'm fine with, but would not want to commit to keeping that way forever.

No commitment - just somewhat more verbose output. If you don't like it, we 
can also drop this patch, or do it in another way, I don't mind too much.

>> +#define HOST_SYNC(vmp, stage)			\
>> +{						\
>> +	HOST_SYNC_NO_TAP(vmp, stage);		\
>> +	ksft_test_result_pass("" #stage "\n");	\
>> +}
>> +
> 
> It should not be a problem, but is there any reason you're not using
> do { ... } while(0) or ({ ... }) instead of just braces?

Yes, that would be better, indeed.

  Thomas