2019-07-01 13:04:58

by Colin King

Subject: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"

From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>

There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.

Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
---
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

2019-07-01 13:13:56

by walter harms

Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"

Am 01.07.2019 15:04, schrieb Colin King:
> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>
> There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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

2019-07-01 18:20:58

by Andy Lutomirski

Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"

On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 AM Colin King <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>
> There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
>
> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
> ---
> 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 <[email protected]>

2019-07-01 18:22:09

by Shuah Khan

Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"

On 7/1/19 7:12 AM, walter harms wrote:
>
>
> Am 01.07.2019 15:04, schrieb Colin King:
>> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>
>> There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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

2019-07-02 14:24:19

by Shuah Khan

Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"

On 7/1/19 11:48 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 AM Colin King <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>
>> There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> 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 <[email protected]>
>

Thanks Andy!

I will queue this up for 5.3

-- Shuah

2019-07-02 19:25:51

by Shuah Khan

Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"

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 <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>>
>>> There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>> ---
>>>   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 <[email protected]>
>>
>
> 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

2019-07-03 00:33:56

by Colin King

Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"

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 <[email protected]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>> There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>>> ---
>>>>   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 <[email protected]>
>>>
>>
>> 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

2019-07-03 00:35:11

by Colin King

Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"

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 <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    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 <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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

2019-07-03 01:19:14

by Shuah Khan

Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"

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 <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <[email protected]>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>   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 <[email protected]>
>>>>
>>>
>>> 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