Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 209.132.180.67 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.132.180.67;
Subject: Re: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" ->
 "FAIL"
To:     wharms@bfs.de, Colin King <colin.king@canonical.com>
Cc:     Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, shuah <shuah@kernel.org>
References: <20190701130431.13391-1-colin.king@canonical.com>
 <5D1A06CE.6000405@bfs.de>
From:   shuah <shuah@kernel.org>
Message-ID: <63f05151-bc25-b19b-61de-7f907fd1c282@kernel.org>
Date:   Mon, 1 Jul 2019 11:59:25 -0600
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <5D1A06CE.6000405@bfs.de>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

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