> On Apr 16, 2019, at 11:57 PM, Andrew Jones <drjones@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 16, 2019 at 10:18:11PM -0700, nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx wrote: >> From: Nadav Amit <nadav.amit@xxxxxxxxx> >> >> Currently, if a test is expected to fail, but surprisingly it passes, >> the test is considered as "failing". > > It's not "failing", it's failing. If a test is expected to pass then > it shouldn't be getting reported with report_xfail(). I find this terminology confusing. For instance, there are some tests which are probabilistic (e.g., test_sti_nmi) - let’s assume you expect one to fail and it passes, would you say that you encountered a failure? > Why would one want to run old kvm-unit-tests on new kvm? I can think of a couple of reasons, but I am not going to argue too much.
