Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:18 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220426181925.3940286-1-dlatypov@google.com> <20220426181925.3940286-2-dlatypov@google.com>
 <CABVgOSkqymYzwaQ68AdEC5yake9VT8HkQmqbyi+9-bg1Jk1UAQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAGS_qxrowBiRBBhNmo+RyQSR6NQphkzx1k3HZ7KqXUNDZFZDzw@mail.gmail.com> <CABVgOSnb0CveWUqbB8aSYu53uRmi+H9Dim3mYbyXi+eQo=y4ww@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABVgOSnb0CveWUqbB8aSYu53uRmi+H9Dim3mYbyXi+eQo=y4ww@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Date:   Fri, 29 Apr 2022 13:16:20 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxoKXFutLVa_XWHpSSjvAyX_vL+BaQDWEMDBSa3S80rSWg@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 Fri, Apr 29, 2022 at 1:01 AM David Gow <davidgow@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2022 at 11:06 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
>
> Personally, I don't have a problem with having it as a field (other
> than the memory usage, which shouldn't be so much as to cause
> problems). It seems that the suite result is logically part of the
> suite, and given that status_comment is in struct kunit_suite and
> there's a kunit_status field in kunit_case, having it as a field in
> the suite seems the most logically consistent thing to do.
>
> >
> > 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.
>
> It still doesn't solve the fact that kunit_suite_has_succeeded() no
> longer tells you if a suite has succeeded or not. If we stick with

I forgot kunit_suite_has_succeeded() is called in the debugfs code.
So it looks like we need to track the init error in struct
kunit_suite, as you said.

It might be cleaner to just store a status in the suite eventually,
but I'll just add the int for now.

Sending a v2 series here:
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20220429181259.622060-1-dlatypov@google.com
I also added on a new patch to fix the type confusion in the debugfs
code (using bool instead of enum kunit_status).