From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v3] selftests: Add tests for efivarfs Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:50:05 -0800 Message-ID: <20130212155005.36f9a718.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1360162088.142733.191120808822.0.gpush@pecola> <1360162088.143076.913706486688.1.gpush@pecola> <20130207151333.f01d415c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <5114CE00.6050307@ozlabs.org> <1360318129.7515.278.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1360318129.7515.278.camel-ZqTwcBeJ+wsBof6jY8KHXm7IUlhRatedral2JQCrhuEAvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> Sender: linux-efi-owner-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org To: Matt Fleming Cc: Jeremy Kerr , linux-kernel-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, linux-efi-u79uwXL29TY76Z2rM5mHXA@public.gmane.org, Lingzhu Xiang , Dave Young List-Id: linux-efi@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:08:49 +0000 Matt Fleming wrote: > On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 18:05 +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > > However, the tests expose a bug at the moment, so run_tests will fail. > > Matt will have that fixed soon though :) > > In which case, would it make more sense for me to take these tests > through the efi tree? I'm fine either way, I'm just looking for the > least surprising option. I don't think it matters much at this stage. selftests is new and is used by approximately zero people so if the tests fail, few will notice. Let's just get it in there and get it settled down. From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1759104Ab3BLXuI (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:50:08 -0500 Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:55180 "EHLO mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755117Ab3BLXuG (ORCPT ); Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:50:06 -0500 Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 15:50:05 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Matt Fleming Cc: Jeremy Kerr , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-efi@vger.kernel.org, Lingzhu Xiang , Dave Young Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v3] selftests: Add tests for efivarfs Message-Id: <20130212155005.36f9a718.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <1360318129.7515.278.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> References: <1360162088.142733.191120808822.0.gpush@pecola> <1360162088.143076.913706486688.1.gpush@pecola> <20130207151333.f01d415c.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <5114CE00.6050307@ozlabs.org> <1360318129.7515.278.camel@mfleming-mobl1.ger.corp.intel.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 3.0.2 (GTK+ 2.20.1; x86_64-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 10:08:49 +0000 Matt Fleming wrote: > On Fri, 2013-02-08 at 18:05 +0800, Jeremy Kerr wrote: > > However, the tests expose a bug at the moment, so run_tests will fail. > > Matt will have that fixed soon though :) > > In which case, would it make more sense for me to take these tests > through the efi tree? I'm fine either way, I'm just looking for the > least surprising option. I don't think it matters much at this stage. selftests is new and is used by approximately zero people so if the tests fail, few will notice. Let's just get it in there and get it settled down.