From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752932Ab1HLRUn (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:20:43 -0400 Received: from hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com ([71.74.56.125]:47098 "EHLO hrndva-omtalb.mail.rr.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751314Ab1HLRUk (ORCPT ); Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:20:40 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.1 cv=s3eDhkhcaTLnj7IEXy8aaXUiY7FbET0mf+/2Xe0elbc= c=1 sm=0 a=jTP-XjUXK6cA:10 a=5SG0PmZfjMsA:10 a=Q9fys5e9bTEA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:17 a=Af_5r3cNoReI0n-iaPsA:9 a=PUjeQqilurYA:10 a=OPBmh+XkhLl+Enan7BmTLg==:117 X-Cloudmark-Score: 0 X-Originating-IP: 67.242.120.143 Subject: Re: [PATCH 07/10] ktest: Introduce PASS_COUNT From: Steven Rostedt To: Andrew Jones Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org In-Reply-To: <20110812170958.GA18363@turtle.usersys.redhat.com> References: <1313155932-20092-1-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> <1313155932-20092-8-git-send-email-drjones@redhat.com> <1313167785.18583.336.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> <20110812170958.GA18363@turtle.usersys.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-15" Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2011 13:20:39 -0400 Message-ID: <1313169639.18583.344.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.32.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 19:09 +0200, Andrew Jones wrote: > > How about PASS_THRESHOLD? or PASS_COUNT_THRESHOLD? As I think that may > > be more descriptive. > > PASS_THRESHOLD sounds good. Should I respin with that change now? Or are > you still considering a different design? > Nah, thinking about it more, I don't like PASS_THRESHOLD either. Maybe we should have a RERUN option. That is, RERUN the test for each iteration? -- Steve