On 06/15/2017 10:11 AM, Paul Elder wrote: > On 06/16/2017 01:09 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 06/15/2017 10:00 AM, Paul Elder wrote: >>> On 06/16/2017 12:56 AM, Alice Ferrazzi wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> On Fri, Jun 16, 2017 at 12:54 AM, Paul Elder <paul.elder@xxxxxxxx <mailto:paul.elder@xxxxxxxx>> wrote: >>>> >>>> Make membarrier test names more informative. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Paul Elder <paul.elder@xxxxxxxx <mailto:paul.elder@xxxxxxxx>> >>>> --- >>>> tools/testing/selftests/membarrier/membarrier_test.c | 4 ++-- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >>>> >>>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/membarrier/membarrier_test.c >>>> b/tools/testing/selftests/membarrier/membarrier_test.c >>>> index cae8c984dfb0..7925fcf9262b 100644 >>>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/membarrier/membarrier_test.c >>>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/membarrier/membarrier_test.c >>>> @@ -21,7 +21,7 @@ static int sys_membarrier(int cmd, int flags) >>>> static enum test_membarrier_status test_membarrier_cmd_fail(void) >>>> { >>>> int cmd = -1, flags = 0; >>>> - const char *test_name = "membarrier command fail"; >>>> + const char *test_name = "membarrier command cmd=-1. Wrong command should fail"; >>>> >>>> if (sys_membarrier(cmd, flags) != -1) { >>>> ksft_test_result_fail(test_name); >>>> @@ -35,7 +35,7 @@ static enum test_membarrier_status test_membarrier_cmd_fail(void) >>>> static enum test_membarrier_status test_membarrier_flags_fail(void) >>>> { >>>> int cmd = MEMBARRIER_CMD_QUERY, flags = 1; >>>> - const char *test_name = "Wrong flags should fail"; >>>> + const char *test_name = "MEMBARRIER_CMD_QUERY, flags=1, Wrong flags should fail"; >>>> >>>> if (sys_membarrier(cmd, flags) != -1) { >>>> ksft_test_result_fail(test_name); >>>> -- >>>> 2.11.0 >>>> >>>> >>>> this is same as the patch I already sended >>>> [PATCH v3 2/5] kselftest: membarrier: convert to TAP13 output >>> Yes, I realize that. However, this is based on linux-kselftest next latest. >>> >>> Not sure what to do. >>> >> >> Paul/Alice, >> >> I will review this one as it is based on linux-kselftest next as per >> my request. >> >> Maybe you both can coordinate on patches and decide ahead of time which >> ones you are going to work on. Will it make easier for the reviewers. > Understood. > > Also I want to confirm: it it fine to have patches in a patch series with > different "From"s? > In general no. The first series had that for good reasons. I am fine with that. As you divide the work, please use just one Signed-off-by which would streamline the review process. thanks, -- Shuah -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kselftest" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
