On 2024-09-17 at 08:32:11 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>Hi Maciej,
>
>On 8/27/24 1:15 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>> On 2024-08-12 at 16:40:10 -0700, Reinette Chatre wrote:
>> > On 7/12/24 2:04 AM, Maciej Wieczor-Retman wrote:
>
>> > > +
>> > > + if ((get_vendor() == ARCH_INTEL) && snc_unreliable) {
>> > > + ksft_print_msg("Sub-NUMA Clustering could not be detected properly (see earlier messages for details).\n");
>> > > + ksft_print_msg("Intel CAT may be inaccurate.\n");
>> > > + }
>> >
>> > This is still relevant but unclear why previous message checked "ret" but above does not.
>>
>> The above check tries to explain why a failure happened.
>>
>> This check is a reminder about a false positive - the test passes but
>> "snc_unreliable" was set. I guess we could make this check to test "!ret"?
>
>Thinking about this more ... if the test results cannot be trusted at all (whether tests pass or
>fail) when snc_reliable is true then it seems more appropriate to just skip these tests when
>SNC detection is unreliable.
Okay, I'll just skip the test if the snc_unreliable is true.
--
Kind regards
Maciej Wieczór-Retman
