| Message ID | 20190701130431.13391-1-colin.king@canonical.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| State | Mainlined |
| Commit | 399ea57a4c8bc5fdb71a024a6870b5767b2ef6d8 |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL" | expand |
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); > return 1; > } "wrong error" sounds like scratching table, perhaps "error" is here sufficient ? Bomus points when user is expected to report this. re, wh
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 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); >> return 1; >> } > > > "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 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
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; }