On Thu, 2008-10-23 at 12:44 +0100, Andy Whitcroft wrote: > > diff --git a/tests/hugetests.h b/tests/hugetests.h > > index 270923b..b860244 100644 > > --- a/tests/hugetests.h > > +++ b/tests/hugetests.h > > @@ -31,6 +31,8 @@ > > #define RC_PASS 0 > > #define RC_CONFIG 1 > > #define RC_FAIL 2 > > +#define RC_XFAIL 3 /* Expected Failure */ > > +#define RC_XPASS 4 /* Unexpected Pass */ > > I don't think it makes sense to use X for both does it? Do we need both > of these? Is not the result simply not the expected result in either > case? RC_NOT_EXPECTED or RC_UNEXPECTED or something?
We do actually need both of these because they are categorized separately. Expected failures are not serious and are like Passing, whereas Unexpected passes indicate a bug in the expected failure detection. Hmm. Maybe I can have an unexpected pass return RC_BUG? Or perhaps we don't care about them and can just return PASS? -- Adam Litke - (agl at us.ibm.com) IBM Linux Technology Center ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/ _______________________________________________ Libhugetlbfs-devel mailing list Libhugetlbfs-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/libhugetlbfs-devel
