From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.2 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_PASS autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 02653C43381 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 18:45:20 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CACAA218C3 for ; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 18:45:19 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1550688319; bh=Z14sohowVdS8S3WpA0mCm6ds57WuCh4Ok8xGuQg5pMs=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:List-ID:From; b=cXms9lU1r/1xzRt4muzU5n+bzMhIrCQWhC58Q69XqFvJoyFHu03lckuiLeallhTJR 31aR2ODtGJGG3T1kjlYqSsZfEnAsQ2lcwK7RKyUyO01yhe/G5LBs1AIqtwljV800HC NIwb1gI1nb1jJbW8/b708gA4eCVZdUaemWySlREY= Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1726954AbfBTSpS (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:45:18 -0500 Received: from mail.kernel.org ([198.145.29.99]:49318 "EHLO mail.kernel.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726285AbfBTSpR (ORCPT ); Wed, 20 Feb 2019 13:45:17 -0500 Received: from tzanussi-mobl (c-98-220-238-81.hsd1.il.comcast.net [98.220.238.81]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4303D21848; Wed, 20 Feb 2019 18:45:16 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=kernel.org; s=default; t=1550688317; bh=Z14sohowVdS8S3WpA0mCm6ds57WuCh4Ok8xGuQg5pMs=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=JKxdpfeKsl2Ax/Ncb1Y1J9rD+EryYerspU/L975ddRMsFMdzCipAZtEWMmJYIdVDp f2jQllJOukbSVP+r4v4Gyjn4B5fXcdxCtJ1QU7/NtVkgFfKJ3il81uMoc7MbQpepEL BQ04n0U2d81Y51pH+RUkh0c0z4yR0YNo/R553ffs= Message-ID: <1550688315.2027.20.camel@kernel.org> Subject: Re: [PATCH v15 15/15] tracing: Add hist trigger action 'expected fail' test case From: Tom Zanussi To: Steven Rostedt Cc: tglx@linutronix.de, mhiramat@kernel.org, namhyung@kernel.org, vedang.patel@intel.com, bigeasy@linutronix.de, joel@joelfernandes.org, mathieu.desnoyers@efficios.com, julia@ni.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-rt-users@vger.kernel.org Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:45:15 -0600 In-Reply-To: <20190220133316.587f3941@gandalf.local.home> References: <1790bf93e01dbdfa1b4af945f42147d92bd565aa.1550100284.git.tom.zanussi@linux.intel.com> <20190220121748.7aa83459@gandalf.local.home> <1550684302.2027.6.camel@kernel.org> <20190220125625.77802cac@gandalf.local.home> <1550686231.2027.14.camel@kernel.org> <20190220133316.587f3941@gandalf.local.home> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" X-Mailer: Evolution 3.26.1-1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 13:33 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:10:31 -0600 > Tom Zanussi 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. > OK, I'm fine with removing it, if it's too confusing. IIRC Masami suggested it to highlight that not all actions and handlers can be used together, so I guess I'll hold off on a patch removing it until he can chime in... Thanks, Tom > Thanks, > > -- Steve