On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 4:47 PM Rasmus Villemoes
<li...@rasmusvillemoes.dk> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 14 Feb 2025 at 17:53, Tamir Duberstein <tam...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 11:02 AM Andy Shevchenko
> > <andriy.shevche...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, Feb 14, 2025 at 04:35:12PM +0100, Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> > > > I have just quickly tested this before leaving for a week.
> > > > And I am fine with the result.
> > >
>
> Thanks, Petr, for demonstrating how it looks in a failure case.
>
> > > Seems reasonable to me. But I want a consensus with Rasmus.
> >
> > I have a local v4 where I've added the same enhancement as the scanf
> > patches so that assertions log the line in the top-level test.
> >
> > I'll wait for Rasmus' reply before sending.
>
> I think all my concerns are addressed, with the lines printed in case
> of error telling what is wrong and not that memcmp() evaluating to 1
> instead of 0, and with the final free-form comment including that "ran
> 448 tests". If you feel that word is confusing when there's
> "obviously" only 28 "test" being done, feel free to change that to
> "did 448 checks" or "did 448 individual checks" any other better
> wording.
>
> Rasmus
Personally, I don't feel strongly about this wording, so I'm hewing
close to the original:
....
ok 25 flags
ok 26 errptr
ok 27 fwnode_pointer
ok 28 fourcc_pointer
# printf: ran 448 tests
# printf: pass:28 fail:0 skip:0 total:28
# Totals: pass:28 fail:0 skip:0 total:28
ok 1 printf
I'll send v4 momentarily. Thanks, all!
