lists.openwall.net   lists  /  announce  owl-users  owl-dev  john-users  john-dev  passwdqc-users  yescrypt  popa3d-users  /  oss-security  kernel-hardening  musl  sabotage  tlsify  passwords  /  crypt-dev  xvendor  /  Bugtraq  Full-Disclosure  linux-kernel  linux-netdev  linux-ext4  PHC 
Open Source and information security mailing list archives
 
Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date:   Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:33:16 -0500
From:   Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>
To:     Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org>
Cc:     tglx@...utronix.de, mhiramat@...nel.org, namhyung@...nel.org,
        vedang.patel@...el.com, bigeasy@...utronix.de,
        joel@...lfernandes.org, mathieu.desnoyers@...icios.com,
        julia@...com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-rt-users@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 15/15] tracing: Add hist trigger action 'expected
 fail' test case

On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:10:31 -0600
Tom Zanussi <zanussi@...nel.org> wrote:

> 
> As far as I understand it (there's no other case of an xfail test in
> the testsuite, so nothing similar to compare it to), the test output is
>  correct - here we get the expected fail, XFAIL, and not a FAIL as any
> test, xfail or normal, that failed would produce:

Yeah, I've been staring at the code, and commit:

915de2adb584a ftracetest: Add POSIX.3 standard and XFAIL result codes


> 
> tools/testing/selftests/ftrace# ./ftracetest test.d/trigger/
> === Ftrace unit tests ===
> [1] event trigger - test inter-event histogram trigger expected fail actions
> [XFAIL]
> [2] event trigger - test extended error support
> [PASS]
> 
> And here the summary shows none failed, while we did have one expected
> xfail, but that's what was expected, and not a failure:
> 
> # of passed:  31
> # of failed:  0
> # of unresolved:  0
> # of untested:  0
> # of unsupported:  0
> # of xfailed:  1

Yeah, but it's marked as RED, which is why I thought it was a failure.

> # of undefined(test bug):  0
> 
> If that's not correct, I'll fix it but at this point I'm not sure what
> the output should be if not that.

OK, so this has nothing to do with your patch set. I've tested
everything else, and I'm ready to finally push my tree to linux-next.

I'm thinking that we should get rid of xfail, as it's really confusing,
and I don't understand its purpose. But that shouldn't stop pushing
your patches.

Thanks,

-- Steve

Powered by blists - more mailing lists