On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:48:19PM +0100, Mark Brown wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:57:38PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

> > I agree that printing something in case KSFT_PASS does not make sense
> > indeed.
> > 
> > But if something goes wrong (KSFT_FAIL/KSFT_SKIP) I would expect a reason in
> > all cases.
> > 
> > IIRC kselftest_harness.h behaves that way:
> 
> That's mostly just it being chatty because it uses an assert based idiom
> rather than explicit pass/fail reports, it's a lot less common for
> things written directly to kselftest.h where it's for example fairly
> common to see a result detected directly in a ksft_result() call.
> That does tend to be quite helpful when looking at the results, you
> don't need to dig out the logs so often.

As was the case with the prior:

        /* Finally, check if we read what we expected. */
-       ksft_test_result(!memcmp(mem, tmp, size),
-                        "Longterm R/W pin is reliable\n");
+       if (!memcmp(mem, tmp, size))
+               log_test_result(KSFT_PASS);
+       else
+               log_test_result(KSFT_FAIL);