On Wed, 2019-02-20 at 13:33 -0500, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 12:10:31 -0600 > Tom Zanussi <zanu...@kernel.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. >
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
