On Fri, 7 Aug 2026 15:15:33 +0800 Hongfu Li <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > ---
> > > v2:
> > > - update ksft_set_plan(88) to 87 to match the actual number of tests
> > > after removing the duplicate call.
> >
> > I wonder if there could be an automated way for this. Obviously not a
> > question
> > to the author but just my loud thought.
>
> Glad you brought this up, I totally agree with your thought.
>
> Something like the below refactor could achieve that automation:
>
> +typedef void (*test_fn)(void);
> +typedef void (*test_fn_seal)(bool seal);
> +
> +static const struct {
> + test_fn_seal fn;
> + bool seal;
> +} tests_seal[] = {
> + { test_seal_mprotect, false },
> + { test_seal_mprotect, true },
> ...
> +};
> +
> +static const test_fn tests[] = {
> + test_seal_addseal,
> + test_seal_unmapped_start,
> ...
> +};
> +
> +
> int main(void)
> {
> ...
> - ksft_set_plan(87);
> + ksft_set_plan(ARRAY_SIZE(tests) + ARRAY_SIZE(tests_seal));
> + for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests); i++)
> + tests[i]();
> + for (size_t i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(tests_seal); i++)
> + tests_seal[i].fn(tests_seal[i].seal);
Thank you for sharing your great idea.
>
> Though I'm still unsure whether this extra complexity is really worthwhile.
Agreed. I believe it is good to have this as is for now.
If we have to add such automation, I think kselftest framework is a better
place to change, than each test.
Thanks,
SJ
