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;
From:   Zhangjin Wu <falcon@tinylab.org>
To:     w@1wt.eu
Cc:     arnd@arndb.de, falcon@tinylab.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, thomas@t-8ch.de
Subject: Re: [PATCH v1 0/5] selftests/nolibc: report: print test status
Date:   Mon, 10 Jul 2023 03:44:07 +0800
Message-Id: <20230709194407.97791-1-falcon@tinylab.org>
In-Reply-To: <20230709085829.GC9321@1wt.eu>
References: <20230709085829.GC9321@1wt.eu>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Feedback-ID: bizesmtp:tinylab.org:qybglogicsvrgz:qybglogicsvrgz5a-1
Precedence: bulk

Hi, Willy

> Hi Zhangjin,
> 
> On Thu, Jul 06, 2023 at 05:02:26PM +0800, Zhangjin Wu wrote:
> > Hi, Willy
> > 
> > As you suggested, the 'status: [success|warning|failure]' info is added
> > to the summary line, with additional newlines around this line to
> > extrude the status info. at the same time, the total tests is printed,
> > the passed, skipped and failed values are aligned with '%03d'.
> 
> So as I mentioned with some commits, I *do* find it important to
> preserve the convenience of grepping for a single word to from 20
> test reports at once and visually check all statuses (and in this
> sense I like your preference for aligning the words to make them
> more readable). But having to guess some grep context and see the
> output garbled clearly does the opposite of what we were looking
> for in my opinion.

Sorry for confusing you, hope my just reply [1] explained the 'newlines'
patch, as you pointed out in another reply, perhaps I need to write more
about the deeper 'background' idea of the patch, but sometimes, I'm also
worried about writing too much, for example, some info may be 'obvious'
but I spent too much statements, I will improve as possible as I can,
thanks.

[1]: https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/20230709192652.97668-1-falcon@tinylab.org/

> Also, I think there's no need for having 5
> separate patches to add/remove a line feed. Better discuss an
> output format that matches everyone's needs and change it at once,
> this will make the patch more reviewable than having individual
> changes like this.

That's right, the patches are split here is just for the last three are
new to our previous discuss, perhaps need more discuss, in the future, I
will propose the ideas before send the patches, just as we did for some
other patches.

Thanks,
Zhangjin

> 
> thanks,
> willy