On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:48:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote: > On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:57:38PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> > I agree that printing something in case KSFT_PASS does not make sense
> > indeed.
> >
> > But if something goes wrong (KSFT_FAIL/KSFT_SKIP) I would expect a reason in
> > all cases.
> >
> > IIRC kselftest_harness.h behaves that way:
>
> That's mostly just it being chatty because it uses an assert based idiom
> rather than explicit pass/fail reports, it's a lot less common for
> things written directly to kselftest.h where it's for example fairly
> common to see a result detected directly in a ksft_result() call.
> That does tend to be quite helpful when looking at the results, you
> don't need to dig out the logs so often.
As was the case with the prior:
/* Finally, check if we read what we expected. */
- ksft_test_result(!memcmp(mem, tmp, size),
- "Longterm R/W pin is reliable\n");
+ if (!memcmp(mem, tmp, size))
+ log_test_result(KSFT_PASS);
+ else
+ log_test_result(KSFT_FAIL);
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
