On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:01:01PM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2015-12-14 16:05-0600, Andrew Jones:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:24:18PM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> diff --git a/x86/pmu.c b/x86/pmu.c
> >> @@ -291,7 +292,7 @@ static void check_counters_many(void)
> >> if (!verify_counter(&cnt[i]))
> >> break;
> >>
> >> - report("all counters", i == n);
> >> + report_xfail("all counters", host_nmi_watchdog, i == n);
> >
> > How about outputting "host_nmi_watchdog=%d" as well?
>
> It's already implied in the output. Prefix will be XPASS/XFAIL if
> host_nmi_watchdog=1 and PASS/FAIL otherwise.
>
> Should it still be explicitly printed?
I think it could help interpret the results without needing to read
the code, but these types of tests generally require reading the
code...
drew
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
