On Mon, Nov 03, 2014 at 03:42:06PM +0000, Thomas Wood wrote: > 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. Ah, makes sense. Can you please add this bit of important information to the commit message before pushing? Thanks, 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
