On Mon, 2014-09-15 at 16:33 -0600, Shuah Khan wrote:
quoted hunk ↗ jump to hunk
Add a new header file that defines exit codes for individual
tests to use to communicate test results. These defines are
intended to provide a common and uniform way for selftests
to report results. pass/fail/xfail/xpass/skip/unsupported
are defined.
Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <redacted>
---
tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++
1 file changed, 20 insertions(+)
create mode 100644 tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..1b1c9cb
--- /dev/null
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.h
@@ -0,0 +1,20 @@
+/*
+ * kselftest.h - kselftest framework return codes to include from
+ * selftests.
+ *
+ * Copyright (c) 2014 Shuah Khan <shuahkh-JPH+aEBZ4P+UEJcrhfAQsw@public.gmane.org>
+ * Copyright (c) 2014 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
+ *
+ * This file is released under the GPLv2.
+ */
+#ifndef __KSELFTEST_H
+#define __KSELFTEST_H
+
+#define EXIT_PASS 0
+#define EXIT_FAIL 1
+#define EXIT_XFAIL 2
+#define EXIT_XPASS 3
+#define EXIT_SKIP 4
+#define EXIT_UNSUPPORTED EXIT_SKIP
Looks to me like a potential name clashes here.
What's the difference between XFAIL/XPASS and regular FAIL/PASS (I don't
see the former used in patchset either, only PASS/FAIL)? What's the
purpose of EXIT_SKIP? I think overall these should be commented.
Also, in the bigger picture, I'm guessing you have a reason for not
recycling errno and inventing your own exit codes... How do you plan on
using these? In addition I'm seeing things like:
- exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
+ exit(EXIT_FAIL);
which isn't a very good idea in general.