From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kunit: add ability to specify suite-level init and exit functions
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 22:06:35 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxrowBiRBBhNmo+RyQSR6NQphkzx1k3HZ7KqXUNDZFZDzw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABVgOSkqymYzwaQ68AdEC5yake9VT8HkQmqbyi+9-bg1Jk1UAQ@mail.gmail.com>
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);
> > +
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-04-27 3:07 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-04-26 18:19 [PATCH 1/3] kunit: rename print_subtest_{start,end} for clarity (s/subtest/suite) Daniel Latypov
2022-04-26 18:19 ` [PATCH 2/3] kunit: add ability to specify suite-level init and exit functions Daniel Latypov
2022-04-27 1:55 ` David Gow
2022-04-27 3:06 ` Daniel Latypov [this message]
2022-04-29 6:01 ` David Gow
2022-04-29 18:16 ` Daniel Latypov
2022-04-26 18:19 ` [PATCH 3/3] kfence: test: use new suite_{init/exit} support, add .kunitconfig Daniel Latypov
2022-04-27 1:56 ` David Gow
2022-04-27 12:41 ` Marco Elver
2022-04-27 1:55 ` [PATCH 1/3] kunit: rename print_subtest_{start,end} for clarity (s/subtest/suite) David Gow
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAGS_qxrowBiRBBhNmo+RyQSR6NQphkzx1k3HZ7KqXUNDZFZDzw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=dlatypov@google.com \
--cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).