Hi Matthew, > On Sat, May 17, 2008 at 09:07:36AM +0200, Michal Simek wrote: >> Hi Richard, Tony, Arnd and others, >> >> I turn on API testsuite for Microblaze CPU for stable 2.6.24 and I got nice log >> with some faults. The same problem I have on latest version. >> >> I found the similar problem for alpha CPU and ia64 but I haven't found solving >> these issues. Could you give me a hint how to solve this problem. > > You missed the crucial line: oou. > 143 out of 218 testcases failed, as expected. > > Some of these testcases are /expected/ to fail. Succeeding would be an > bug. There are no bugs here. Thanks for your help. Are these tescases architecture dependent? Because I saw some logs from other arch and they have everything OK. Does it mean that everything what I supported works well? I look to source code and I found these two lines. DO_TESTCASE_6("double unlock", double_unlock); DO_TESTCASE_6("initialize held", init_held); and macro #define DO_TESTCASE_6(desc, name) \ print_testname(desc); \ dotest(name##_spin, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_SPIN); \ dotest(name##_wlock, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWLOCK); \ dotest(name##_rlock, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWLOCK); \ dotest(name##_mutex, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_MUTEX); \ dotest(name##_wsem, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM); \ dotest(name##_rsem, FAILURE, LOCKTYPE_RWSEM); \ printk("\n"); My results | spin |wlock |rlock |mutex | wsem | rsem | double unlock: ok | ok |failed|failed|failed|failed| initialize held:failed|failed|failed|failed|failed|failed| Is this result OK? Because macro say that expected value is failed. Regards, Michal -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ia64" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
![]() |