From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3D164C433E0 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1853620810 for ; Wed, 17 Jun 2020 00:02:48 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=chromium.org header.i=@chromium.org header.b="Uzye1Hii" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726134AbgFQACr (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:02:47 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:38596 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726025AbgFQACr (ORCPT ); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 20:02:47 -0400 Received: from mail-pj1-x1030.google.com (mail-pj1-x1030.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::1030]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6B3F3C06174E for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:02:47 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-pj1-x1030.google.com with SMTP id ne5so135064pjb.5 for ; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:02:47 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=chromium.org; s=google; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references:mime-version :content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Oe/hKAKHGvJszycxiAbC2N5QfwK/kv0uW4M610gYZnY=; b=Uzye1Hii/AU8ot5ff4TsthmYVWhTUyRMrsmmfyHoIJqYq0Eczq1dwhp+mbdXjzxeAk 9wtUHLgg37QXJIUyFQ6rDtjQp3FQFt9exXKj6glBGuADuVrm6eo0dkXUYsQLogY6rCI9 BpLcmQTqsen/Cx1v4BpvB1mjEzFdSmlc8bDSU= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references :mime-version:content-disposition:in-reply-to; bh=Oe/hKAKHGvJszycxiAbC2N5QfwK/kv0uW4M610gYZnY=; b=DdO3ccxh3rbEAKkhdITQw1Bhl2xzAh9NIQcZ52w5cIxNbOYslQr3AWpjrBR/XoXffH k4dO58Mzo4EyojRKF33dNOH+qfyn2gpLvkc25PithZ+F+HH2VmHIx/ogmvWXCn2wVuOP dhu38H7jMPemeAkihFIiHyHTc8nLA25J0mpEccBL4CypCw5MOoRihMn8ilsC8Mcl1hSZ KNsviTpEtJyI7vIRJj5uLH6SGxWoH/94ST4RbNQSQMwMhGFX4ZmU3/bBPIGlR6witleY 5bt8QGvJbPGAneN51NGu23JQI9xcz0JniXIbgBuH6IEtGT5bRsAmhrigNRzyWWmU9hns l32g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533eDuqptzZ109AQ9fxmDBmxooWnZ5jZt65Ck1w1IbpW5NFp5bff TAmNa/wkJ+Dwxwm+W/HPUIPrZw== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxoKbB2AxNcWqAGD8BdmcD9iQ3Qib8cSe2Dw81g0u/XxRdehdq7O3qmk9pRWtrwZeHldhqg5g== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:be09:: with SMTP id a9mr4981100pjs.43.1592352166752; Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:02:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from www.outflux.net (smtp.outflux.net. [198.145.64.163]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 10sm17861488pfn.6.2020.06.16.17.02.45 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:02:45 -0700 (PDT) Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 17:02:45 -0700 From: Kees Cook To: "Bird, Tim" Cc: Brendan Higgins , David Gow , "shuah@kernel.org" , "linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org" , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Paolo Bonzini Subject: Re: RFC - kernel selftest result documentation (KTAP) Message-ID: <202006161701.685284F@keescook> References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kselftest-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 08:37:18PM +0000, Bird, Tim wrote: > One thing that needs to be rationalized between KUnit and selftest > is the syntax for subtests. KUnit follows the TAP14 spec, and starts > subtests with indented "# Subtest: name of the child test" > and selftests just indents the output from the child test, so it > starts with indented "TAP version 13". One issue I have with the > TAP14/KUnit approach is that the output from the child is different > depending on whether the test is called in the context of another > test or not. Right -- I'd *really* like the subtests to be "separable", since the primary issue is actually that a subtest may not know it is a subtest, and passing that knowledge in may be difficult/disruptive. -- Kees Cook