On 09/16/2014 11:40 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Shuah Khan [off-list ref] wrote:
I think we will want a framework in the tree, but it can be very
minimal. But I also think that using exit(2) for this is wrong. Why
not:
enum ktest_result {
KTEST_PASS,
...,
};
void ktest_exit(enum ktest_result result);
With the possibility of further extensions for more than one test (and
associated result) per execution of the test binary.
Nothing wrong with the approach. It is one of the options I considered
and decided against it primarily because tests need more changes than
the ones needed for return codes. However, maybe it is worth while to
do so. I will play with this and see how extensive the changes are.
thanks,
-- Shuah
--
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh-JPH+aEBZ4P+UEJcrhfAQsw@public.gmane.org | (970) 217-8978