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); return 1; }
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.
re, wh
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
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 AM Colin King colin.king@canonical.com wrote:
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); return 1; }-- 2.20.1
Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org
On 7/1/19 11:48 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 AM Colin King colin.king@canonical.com wrote:
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); return 1; }-- 2.20.1
Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org
Thanks Andy!
I will queue this up for 5.3
-- Shuah
On 7/2/19 8:22 AM, shuah wrote:
On 7/1/19 11:48 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 AM Colin King colin.king@canonical.com wrote:
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); return 1; } -- 2.20.1
Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org
Thanks Andy!
I will queue this up for 5.3
-- Shuah
Hi Colin,
Checkpatch warning on this. Probably failed on the original patch. Could you please fix the checkpatch warn, and send v2.
thanks, -- Shuah
On 02/07/2019 20:25, shuah wrote:
On 7/2/19 8:22 AM, shuah wrote:
On 7/1/19 11:48 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 AM Colin King colin.king@canonical.com wrote:
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); return 1; } -- 2.20.1
Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org
Thanks Andy!
I will queue this up for 5.3
-- Shuah
Hi Colin,
Checkpatch warning on this. Probably failed on the original patch. Could you please fix the checkpatch warn, and send v2.
If I split the line, I get another checkpatch warning:
"WARNING: quoted string split across lines"
Either way checkpatch emits a warning. The convention is to not break literal strings, and the line is only a few chars over the 80 char boundary, so the V1 of the patch is the way it should be IMHO.
Colin
thanks, -- Shuah
On 7/2/19 4:42 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
On 02/07/2019 20:25, shuah wrote:
On 7/2/19 8:22 AM, shuah wrote:
On 7/1/19 11:48 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 AM Colin King colin.king@canonical.com wrote:
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); return 1; } -- 2.20.1
Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org
Thanks Andy!
I will queue this up for 5.3
-- Shuah
Hi Colin,
Checkpatch warning on this. Probably failed on the original patch. Could you please fix the checkpatch warn, and send v2.
If I split the line, I get another checkpatch warning:
"WARNING: quoted string split across lines"
Either way checkpatch emits a warning. The convention is to not break literal strings, and the line is only a few chars over the 80 char boundary, so the V1 of the patch is the way it should be IMHO.
As such this existed before your patch. I will apply v1.
thanks, -- Shuah
On 02/07/2019 23:48, shuah wrote:
On 7/2/19 4:42 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
On 02/07/2019 20:25, shuah wrote:
On 7/2/19 8:22 AM, shuah wrote:
On 7/1/19 11:48 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 AM Colin King colin.king@canonical.com wrote:
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); return 1; } -- 2.20.1
Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski luto@kernel.org
Thanks Andy!
I will queue this up for 5.3
-- Shuah
Hi Colin,
Checkpatch warning on this. Probably failed on the original patch. Could you please fix the checkpatch warn, and send v2.
If I split the line, I get another checkpatch warning:
"WARNING: quoted string split across lines"
Either way checkpatch emits a warning. The convention is to not break literal strings, and the line is only a few chars over the 80 char boundary, so the V1 of the patch is the way it should be IMHO.
As such this existed before your patch. I will apply v1.
Cool, thanks Shuah.
thanks, -- Shuah
linux-kselftest-mirror@lists.linaro.org
-
Andy Lutomirski -
Colin Ian King -
Colin King
-
shuah -
walter harms