On 08/26/2014 05:15 AM, Masami Hiramatsu wrote:
> Add XFAIL, XPASS and UNSUPPORTED as a result code. These are
> used for the results that test case is expected to fail or
> unsupported feature (by config).
> This also introduces PASS/FAIL/XFAIL/XPASS/UNSUP result codes
> for each testcase. Since the results are not binary, each
> testcase must use these code to return the test result.
>
> Signed-off-by: Masami Hiramatsu <masami.hiramatsu...@hitachi.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/ftrace/ftracetest | 61
> +++++++++++++++-----
> tools/testing/ftrace/test.d/basic1.tc | 6 ++
> tools/testing/ftrace/test.d/basic2.tc | 6 +-
> tools/testing/ftrace/test.d/basic3.tc | 9 ++-
> .../testing/ftrace/test.d/kprobe/add_and_remove.tc | 15 +++--
> tools/testing/ftrace/test.d/kprobe/busy_check.tc | 20 +++----
> tools/testing/ftrace/test.d/template | 6 ++
> 7 files changed, 84 insertions(+), 39 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/ftrace/ftracetest b/tools/testing/ftrace/ftracetest
> index 0378c8a..bfcd56a 100755
> --- a/tools/testing/ftrace/ftracetest
> +++ b/tools/testing/ftrace/ftracetest
> @@ -107,22 +107,53 @@ catlog() { #file
> }
>
> # Testcase management
> +# Test result codes
> +PASS=0 # The test succeeded.
> +FAIL=1 # The test failed, but was expected to succeed.
> +XFAIL=2 # The test failed, and was expected to fail.
> +XPASS=3 # The test succeeded, but was expected to fail.
This one is confusing. It is still a failure. XFAIL case is
expected to fail, using that convention XPASS should be
expected to pass?
Can we use XFAIL0 for XFAIL pass case and XFAIL1 for XFAIL fail
case?
thanks,
-- Shuah
--
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shua...@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
