Received-SPF: softfail (google.com: domain of transitioning linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org does not designate 23.128.96.19 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.19;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220426181925.3940286-1-dlatypov@google.com> <20220426181925.3940286-2-dlatypov@google.com>
 <CABVgOSkqymYzwaQ68AdEC5yake9VT8HkQmqbyi+9-bg1Jk1UAQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABVgOSkqymYzwaQ68AdEC5yake9VT8HkQmqbyi+9-bg1Jk1UAQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:06:35 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxrowBiRBBhNmo+RyQSR6NQphkzx1k3HZ7KqXUNDZFZDzw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kunit: add ability to specify suite-level init and
 exit functions
To:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Apr 26, 2022 at 8:56 PM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
> >
> >  static size_t kunit_suite_counter = 1;
> >
> > -static void kunit_print_suite_end(struct kunit_suite *suite)
> > +static void kunit_print_suite_end(struct kunit_suite *suite, int init_err)
>
> A part of me feels that it'd be nicer to have the init_err be part of
> struct kunit_suite, and have kunit_suite_has_succeeded() take it into
> account. It could go either way, though -- WDYT?

Yeah, passing it around as a parameter felt a bit icky.
But I think adding it in as a field feels worse.

Another thought: perhaps have this function take a `kunit_status`
parameter instead?
Moving the ?: expression below out into the caller isn't that bad, imo.

>
>
> >  {
> > +       enum kunit_status status =
> > +               init_err ? KUNIT_FAILURE : kunit_suite_has_succeeded(suite);
> > +