On Tue, Jun 03, 2025 at 06:57:38PM +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 03.06.25 17:22, Mark Brown wrote:

> > Like I've been saying this is just the final test result, in this case I
> > would expect that for the actual thing we're trying to test any
> > confusion would be addressed in the name of the test so that it's clear
> > what it was trying to test.  So adding "Leak from parent to child" to
> > the name of all the tests?
> 
> 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.