Re: [PATCH] selftests:firmware: fixes a call to a wrong function name

[Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>]

On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:39:02AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Jeffrin Jose T <ahiliation@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> >  This is a patch to the tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> >  file which fixes a bug which calls to a wrong function name,which in turn
> >  blocks the execution of certain tests.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeffrin Jose T <jeffrin@rajagiritech.edu.in>
> >
> > ---
> >  tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh | 2 +-
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> > index 06d638e9dc62..cffdd4eb0a57 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> > @@ -66,5 +66,5 @@ if [ -f $FW_FORCE_SYSFS_FALLBACK ]; then
> >         run_test_config_0003
> >  else
> >         echo "Running basic kernel configuration, working with your config"
> > -       run_test
> > +       run_tests
> >  fi
> 
> I find it confusing that run_tests() uses $1 and $2 but later ignores
> them unless -f $FW_FORCE_SYSFS_FALLBACK, which is checked at both the
> top level and in proc_set_*_fallback()... I'd expected the test to
> happen only in run_tests() and have it removed from from
> proc_set_*_fallback().
> 
> Regardless, the above patch is correct to run the tests. :)

Thanks, I'll go queue this up.

greg k-h