>>>
>>>>
>>>>> +
>>>>> + /*
>>>>> + * We want CPU #2 to be stopped. This should be the case at this
>>>>> + * point, however, we want to sense if it even exists as well.
>>>>> + */
>>>>> + ret = smp_cpu_stop(2);
>>>>> + if (ret) {
>>>>> + report_skip("CPU #2 not found");
>>>>
>>>> Since you already queried for the availablity of at least 3 CPUs above, I
>>>> think you could turn this into a report_fail() instead?
>>>
>>> either that or an assert, but again, no strong opinions
>>>
>>
>> Just because there are >= 3 CPUs doesn't imply that CPU #2 is around.
>
> Ok, fair point. But if #2 is not around, it means that the test has been run
> in the wrong way by the user... I wonder what's better in that case - to
> skip this test or to go out with a bang. Skipping the test has the advantage
> of looking a little bit more "polite", but it has the disadvantage that it
> might get lost in automation, e.g. if somebody enabled the test in their CI,
> but did something wrong in the settings, they might not notice that the test
> is not run at all...
I sticked to what we have in s390x/smp.c, where we fail if we only have
a single CPU.
But I don't particularly care (and have to move on doing other stuff),
so I'll do whatever maintainers want and resend :)
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb
