[next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"
diff mbox series

Message ID 20190701130431.13391-1-colin.king@canonical.com
State Mainlined
Commit 399ea57a4c8bc5fdb71a024a6870b5767b2ef6d8
Headers show
Series
  • [next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"
Related show

Commit Message

Colin Ian King July 1, 2019, 1:04 p.m. UTC
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(-)

Comments

Walter Harms July 1, 2019, 1:12 p.m. UTC | #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);
>  		return 1;
>  	}


"wrong error" sounds like scratching table, perhaps "error" is here sufficient ?
Bomus points when user is expected to report this.

re,
 wh
Andy Lutomirski July 1, 2019, 5:48 p.m. UTC | #2
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>
shuah July 1, 2019, 5:59 p.m. UTC | #3
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
shuah July 2, 2019, 2:22 p.m. UTC | #4
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
shuah July 2, 2019, 7:25 p.m. UTC | #5
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
Colin Ian King July 2, 2019, 10:42 p.m. UTC | #6
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
shuah July 2, 2019, 10:48 p.m. UTC | #7
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
Colin Ian King July 2, 2019, 10:50 p.m. UTC | #8
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

Patch
diff mbox series

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;
 	}