On 7/1/19 7:12 AM, walter harms wrote:
Am 01.07.2019 15:04, schrieb Colin King:
From: Colin Ian King colin.king@canonical.com
There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King colin.king@canonical.com
tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c index 4602326b8f5b..a4f4d4cf22c3 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c @@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ static int test_vsys_x(void) printf("[OK]\tExecuting the vsyscall page failed: #PF(0x%lx)\n", segv_err); } else {
printf("[FAILT]\tExecution failed with the wrong error: #PF(0x%lx)\n",
printf("[FAIL]\tExecution failed with the wrong error: #PF(0x%lx)\n", segv_err);"wrong error" sounds like scratching table, perhaps "error" is here sufficient ? Bomus points when user is expected to report this.
Just "error" would not accurate her. I think the intent is to say that syscall returned an invalid error code. "Invalid error code" would be accurate.
It would be helpful to report the expected error code.
thanks, -- Shuah