On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:18 AM, Prarit Bhargava <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/26/2015 01:33 PM, Tyler Baker wrote: >> I realize this may be a good amount of work, so I'd like to help out. >> Perhaps working John to convert his timer tests to use TAP output >> would be a good starting point? > > John, I could probably do that for you. I'm always willing to give it a shot.
I took a quick look into it, since I'm definitely interested in improving output formatting, but man, TAP is a fairly ugly output format if you ask me. It only has binary "ok" or "not ok" (why not "fail", or something else that's exclusively grep-able, I don't know). So I'm not sure if cases where functionality is unsupported should be a pass or fail. Most problematically: It seems to want enumeration in the test output (so test 2 needs to print: "ok 2 Test complete") which means either there needs to be a wrapper that does the TAP output knowing which test of N its currently running, or the test number needs to be submitted as an runtime argument to the test, and the test then has to add it to its output line. Anyway, if we do want to go with that format, I suspect it should be something we add to the kselftest pass/fail hooks, rather then to the individual tests. Then its just a matter of prefixing normal test output with #'s so they can be ignored by the parser. thanks -john -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
