Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v1 2/6] s390x: basic self test

From: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
To: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>,
	Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>,
	Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>,
	Cornelia Huck <cornelia.huck@de.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v1 2/6] s390x: basic self test
Date: Wed, 17 May 2017 18:50:47 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d6d19d2c-d4d6-b414-63ba-317e8cd975ea@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20170517131222.GA7101@potion>

>>>> +	if (strcmp(argv[1], "test") != 0)
>>>> +		report_abort("wrong parameter value");
>>>> +	if (strcmp(argv[2], "123") != 0)
>>>> +		report_abort("wrong parameter value");
>>>> +
>>>> +	report("test true", true, 0);
>>>                                   ^
>>> It seems you'll be doing v2 -- please remove this zero in it.
>>
>> Thanks, if that would throw an error during compile time like printf, it
>> would be perfect.
>>
>> Yes, I'll resend!
> 
> Thinking more about it, the test would look better if we used report()
> instead of if()+report_abort() and a final report, something like:
> 
>   report("argv[0] == PROGNAME", !strcmp(argv[0], "s390x/selftest.elf"));
>   report("argv[1] == test",     !strcmp(argv[1], "test"));
>   report("argv[2] == 123",      !strcmp(argv[2], "123"));
> 
> This is also a nitpick and I'll gladly accept the original version. :)
> 

Thanks - I'll add that change and send a new version out tomorrow.

-- 

Thanks,

David