On 08/21, Daniel Borkmann wrote:
> On 8/19/19 9:17 PM, Stanislav Fomichev wrote:
> > Now that we have a global per-test/per-environment state, there
> > is no longer need to have global fail/success counters (and there
> > is no need to save/get the diff before/after the test).
>
> Thanks for the improvements, just a small comment below, otherwise LGTM.
>
> > Introduce QCHECK macro (suggested by Andrii) and covert existing tests
> > to it. QCHECK uses new test__fail() to record the failure.
> >
> > Cc: Andrii Nakryiko <andr...@fb.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Stanislav Fomichev <s...@google.com>
> [...]
> > @@ -96,17 +93,25 @@ extern struct ipv6_packet pkt_v6;
> > #define _CHECK(condition, tag, duration, format...) ({
> > \
> > int __ret = !!(condition); \
> > if (__ret) { \
> > - error_cnt++; \
> > + test__fail(); \
> > printf("%s:FAIL:%s ", __func__, tag); \
> > printf(format); \
> > } else { \
> > - pass_cnt++; \
> > printf("%s:PASS:%s %d nsec\n", \
> > __func__, tag, duration); \
> > } \
> > __ret; \
> > })
> > +#define QCHECK(condition) ({
> > \
> > + int __ret = !!(condition); \
> > + if (__ret) { \
> > + test__fail(); \
> > + printf("%s:FAIL:%d ", __func__, __LINE__); \
> > + } \
> > + __ret; \
> > +})
>
> I know it's just a tiny nit but the name QCHECK() really doesn't tell me
> anything
> if I don't see its definition. Even just a CHECK_FAIL() might be 'better' and
> more aligned with the CHECK() and CHECK_ATTR() we have, at least I don't think
> many would automatically derive 'quiet' from the Q prefix [0].
CHECK_FAIL sounds good, will respin! Thanks!
> [0]
> https://lore.kernel.org/bpf/CAEf4BzbUGiUZBWkTWe2=lfhkxyhqgndn9gr6vtzwfv3eyts...@mail.gmail.com/
>
> > #define CHECK(condition, tag, format...) \
> > _CHECK(condition, tag, duration, format)
> > #define CHECK_ATTR(condition, tag, format...) \
> >
>
