From: Shuah Khan
Date: Wed, 7 Mar 2018 12:51:06 -0700
> That said, I am open to adding a distinct state for skipped because
> can't be run.
That is what I think should happen.
On 03/07/2018 11:25 AM, David Miller wrote:
> From: Anders Roxell
> Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:10:04 +0100
>
>> The reuseport_bpf_numa test case fails there's no numa support. The
>> test shouldn't fail if there's no support it should be skipped with a
>> pass.
>>
>>
From: Anders Roxell
Date: Tue, 6 Mar 2018 16:10:04 +0100
> The reuseport_bpf_numa test case fails there's no numa support. The
> test shouldn't fail if there's no support it should be skipped with a
> pass.
>
> Fixes: 3c2c3c16aaf6 ("reuseport, bpf: add test case for
The reuseport_bpf_numa test case fails there's no numa support. The
test shouldn't fail if there's no support it should be skipped with a
pass.
Fixes: 3c2c3c16aaf6 ("reuseport, bpf: add test case for bpf_get_numa_node_id")
Signed-off-by: Anders Roxell
---