On 3 November 2014 15:02, Daniel Vetter <daniel@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 11:31:02AM +0000, Thomas Wood wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Thomas Wood <thomas.wood@xxxxxxxxx> >> --- >> lib/tests/igt_command_line.sh | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/lib/tests/igt_command_line.sh b/lib/tests/igt_command_line.sh >> index 7e6ca67..5cf2584 100755 >> --- a/lib/tests/igt_command_line.sh >> +++ b/lib/tests/igt_command_line.sh >> @@ -48,20 +48,20 @@ for test in $TESTLIST; do >> >> # check invalid option handling >> echo " Checking invalid option handling..." >> - ./$test --invalid-option 2> /dev/null && exit 99 >> + ./$test --invalid-option 2> /dev/null && exit 1 > > Just a curious question: What's better with hardcoding 1 than hardcoding > 99? Otherwise series lgtm. >From the automake manual: "When no test protocol is in use, an exit status of 0 from a test script will denote a success, an exit status of 77 a skipped test, an exit status of 99 an hard error, and any other exit status will denote a failure." So, an exit status of 99 is reported separately in the summary as an error, rather than as a test failure. > -Daniel > -- > Daniel Vetter > Software Engineer, Intel Corporation > +41 (0) 79 365 57 48 - http://blog.ffwll.ch > _______________________________________________ > Intel-gfx mailing list > Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx _______________________________________________ Intel-gfx mailing list Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
