[LTP] Spelling "succeded" VS. "succeeded"

[LTP] Spelling "succeded" VS. "succeeded"

[Sedat Dilek]

Hi,

this is my first email to the LTP ML, so I am new and anot not
familiar with known or unknown conventions here.

I am using LTP, to be honest the "lite" test to check my Linux
(upstream) and Linux-Next kernels.
So, having run "runltplite.sh" successfully gives me a 1st impression
or orientation this kernel has no bigger issues.

To be honest I have checked with a minimal kernel-setup (a
localmodconfig-ed setup with some debugging enabled).

While looking trough the results especially searching for some
pattern, I noticed the different spelling of the word "succeeded" VS.
"succeded".
The spell-checker integrated in Firefox v18.0 tells me "succeeded"
with double-e is correct.

[ SUCCEDED - one "E" ]

$ egrep -i 'error|fail'
runltplite-results_3.8.0-rc3-next20130116-2-iniza-generic.txt | egrep
-i succeded
flock01     1  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Shared Lock, returned
error number=0
flock01     2  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Unlock, returned error number=0
flock01     3  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Exclusive Lock,
returned error number=0

[ SUCCEEDED - double "E" ]

$ egrep -i 'error|fail'
runltplite-results_3.8.0-rc3-next20130116-2-iniza-generic.txt | egrep
-i succeeded
madvise02    5  TFAIL  :  madvise succeeded unexpectedly
open call succeededopen failed with EACCES as expectedopen call
succeeded<<<execution_status>>>

AFAICS flock01.c needs to be corrected:

--- ltp-full-20120903.orig/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock01.c
 2012-09-03 06:39:27.000000000 +0200
+++ ltp-full-20120903/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock01.c
2013-01-16 14:12:36.597859952 +0100
@@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
                                continue;       /*next loop for MTKERNEL  */
                        } else {
                                tst_resm(TPASS,
-                                        "flock() succeded with %s,
returned error number=%d",
+                                        "flock() succeeded with %s,
returned error number=%d",
                                         test_cases[i].opt, TEST_ERRNO);
                        }

Not sure if you like that patch sent via git-email as a separate patch?

Thanks!

Kind regards,
- Sedat -

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Java SE, Java EE, Eclipse, Spring, Hibernate, JavaScript, jQuery
and much more. Keep your Java skills current with LearnJavaNow -
200+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Java experts.
SALE $49.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122612 
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] Spelling "succeded" VS. "succeeded"

[shubham]

On 01/16/2013 06:45 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
> Hi,
>
> this is my first email to the LTP ML, so I am new and anot not
> familiar with known or unknown conventions here.
>
> I am using LTP, to be honest the "lite" test to check my Linux
> (upstream) and Linux-Next kernels.
> So, having run "runltplite.sh" successfully gives me a 1st impression
> or orientation this kernel has no bigger issues.
>
> To be honest I have checked with a minimal kernel-setup (a
> localmodconfig-ed setup with some debugging enabled).
>
> While looking trough the results especially searching for some
> pattern, I noticed the different spelling of the word "succeeded" VS.
> "succeded".
> The spell-checker integrated in Firefox v18.0 tells me "succeeded"
> with double-e is correct.
>
> [ SUCCEDED - one "E" ]
>
> $ egrep -i 'error|fail'
> runltplite-results_3.8.0-rc3-next20130116-2-iniza-generic.txt | egrep
> -i succeded
> flock01     1  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Shared Lock, returned
> error number=0
> flock01     2  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Unlock, returned error number=0
> flock01     3  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Exclusive Lock,
> returned error number=0
>
> [ SUCCEEDED - double "E" ]
>
> $ egrep -i 'error|fail'
> runltplite-results_3.8.0-rc3-next20130116-2-iniza-generic.txt | egrep
> -i succeeded
> madvise02    5  TFAIL  :  madvise succeeded unexpectedly
> open call succeededopen failed with EACCES as expectedopen call
> succeeded<<<execution_status>>>
>
> AFAICS flock01.c needs to be corrected:
>
> --- ltp-full-20120903.orig/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock01.c
>   2012-09-03 06:39:27.000000000 +0200
> +++ ltp-full-20120903/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock01.c
> 2013-01-16 14:12:36.597859952 +0100
> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>                                  continue;       /*next loop for MTKERNEL  */
>                          } else {
>                                  tst_resm(TPASS,
> -                                        "flock() succeded with %s,
> returned error number=%d",
> +                                        "flock() succeeded with %s,
> returned error number=%d",
>                                           test_cases[i].opt, TEST_ERRNO);
>                          }
>
> Not sure if you like that patch sent via git-email as a separate patch?
>

We are not very concerned about some typos in log messages. Please come 
up with a fix for a broken test case or something which will really add 
a value to the LTP. Your patches are welcome. Kindly refer the 
documentation provided with LTP for the format of patch.

Thanks


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Java SE, Java EE, Eclipse, Spring, Hibernate, JavaScript, jQuery
and much more. Keep your Java skills current with LearnJavaNow -
200+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Java experts.
SALE $49.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122612 
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] Spelling "succeded" VS. "succeeded"

[chrubis]

Hi!
> While looking trough the results especially searching for some
> pattern, I noticed the different spelling of the word "succeeded" VS.
> "succeded".
> The spell-checker integrated in Firefox v18.0 tells me "succeeded"
> with double-e is correct.
> 
> [ SUCCEDED - one "E" ]
> 
> $ egrep -i 'error|fail'
> runltplite-results_3.8.0-rc3-next20130116-2-iniza-generic.txt | egrep
> -i succeded
> flock01     1  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Shared Lock, returned
> error number=0
> flock01     2  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Unlock, returned error number=0
> flock01     3  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Exclusive Lock,
> returned error number=0
> 
> [ SUCCEEDED - double "E" ]
> 
> $ egrep -i 'error|fail'
> runltplite-results_3.8.0-rc3-next20130116-2-iniza-generic.txt | egrep
> -i succeeded
> madvise02    5  TFAIL  :  madvise succeeded unexpectedly
> open call succeededopen failed with EACCES as expectedopen call
> succeeded<<<execution_status>>>
> 
> AFAICS flock01.c needs to be corrected:
> 
> --- ltp-full-20120903.orig/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock01.c
>  2012-09-03 06:39:27.000000000 +0200
> +++ ltp-full-20120903/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock01.c
> 2013-01-16 14:12:36.597859952 +0100
> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>                                 continue;       /*next loop for MTKERNEL  */
>                         } else {
>                                 tst_resm(TPASS,
> -                                        "flock() succeded with %s,
> returned error number=%d",
> +                                        "flock() succeeded with %s,
> returned error number=%d",
>                                          test_cases[i].opt, TEST_ERRNO);
>                         }
> 
> Not sure if you like that patch sent via git-email as a separate patch?

There is no need for such elaborate explanation for a patch fixing a typo ;).

The ideal way of sending a patches here is unified diff with
signed-of-by line (you can generate these by git format-patch or use git
send-email to mail them directly).

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Java SE, Java EE, Eclipse, Spring, Hibernate, JavaScript, jQuery
and much more. Keep your Java skills current with LearnJavaNow -
200+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Java experts.
SALE $49.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122612 
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] Spelling "succeded" VS. "succeeded"

[Sedat Dilek]

On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 3:02 PM, shubham <shubham@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 01/16/2013 06:45 PM, Sedat Dilek wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> this is my first email to the LTP ML, so I am new and anot not
>> familiar with known or unknown conventions here.
>>
>> I am using LTP, to be honest the "lite" test to check my Linux
>> (upstream) and Linux-Next kernels.
>> So, having run "runltplite.sh" successfully gives me a 1st impression
>> or orientation this kernel has no bigger issues.
>>
>> To be honest I have checked with a minimal kernel-setup (a
>> localmodconfig-ed setup with some debugging enabled).
>>
>> While looking trough the results especially searching for some
>> pattern, I noticed the different spelling of the word "succeeded" VS.
>> "succeded".
>> The spell-checker integrated in Firefox v18.0 tells me "succeeded"
>> with double-e is correct.
>>
>> [ SUCCEDED - one "E" ]
>>
>> $ egrep -i 'error|fail'
>> runltplite-results_3.8.0-rc3-next20130116-2-iniza-generic.txt | egrep
>> -i succeded
>> flock01     1  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Shared Lock, returned
>> error number=0
>> flock01     2  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Unlock, returned error
>> number=0
>> flock01     3  TPASS  :  flock() succeded with Exclusive Lock,
>> returned error number=0
>>
>> [ SUCCEEDED - double "E" ]
>>
>> $ egrep -i 'error|fail'
>> runltplite-results_3.8.0-rc3-next20130116-2-iniza-generic.txt | egrep
>> -i succeeded
>> madvise02    5  TFAIL  :  madvise succeeded unexpectedly
>> open call succeededopen failed with EACCES as expectedopen call
>> succeeded<<<execution_status>>>
>>
>> AFAICS flock01.c needs to be corrected:
>>
>> --- ltp-full-20120903.orig/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock01.c
>>   2012-09-03 06:39:27.000000000 +0200
>> +++ ltp-full-20120903/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock01.c
>> 2013-01-16 14:12:36.597859952 +0100
>> @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>                                  continue;       /*next loop for MTKERNEL
>> */
>>                          } else {
>>                                  tst_resm(TPASS,
>> -                                        "flock() succeded with %s,
>> returned error number=%d",
>> +                                        "flock() succeeded with %s,
>> returned error number=%d",
>>                                           test_cases[i].opt, TEST_ERRNO);
>>                          }
>>
>> Not sure if you like that patch sent via git-email as a separate patch?
>>
>
> We are not very concerned about some typos in log messages. Please come up
> with a fix for a broken test case or something which will really add a value
> to the LTP. Your patches are welcome. Kindly refer the documentation
> provided with LTP for the format of patch.
>

Hi,

as said I am knew to LTP.

Such a typo makes grepping for special search-patterns difficult.
I was searching for real failures by sorting out "expected" and
"succeeded" lines.
Even this is a trivial fix for you - it helped here :-).

Not sure what you are expecting from me.
Might be I flood ltp-results ML with the results of my Linux-Next kernels.
Unsure if this helps people or not.

Personally, I don't like the outputs of results...
Especially start/end tags should include the (file)name of the testcase.
But I had no deeper look into the results and only run the "lite" test-script.

Looking into the README file I see I am missing some kernel-configs to
be enabled.
Not sure if I really what to dig that deep into LTP.

Of course, LTP is a helpful testing-framework.
It gives me a better feeling than just only test my kernels...
1. on bare metal (not in any VM)
2. in daily usage

I could catch a madvise regression in Linux-Next and reported it.

Thanks!

Regards,
- Sedat -

[1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-next&m=135819894717604&w=2

> Thanks
>

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Java SE, Java EE, Eclipse, Spring, Hibernate, JavaScript, jQuery
and much more. Keep your Java skills current with LearnJavaNow -
200+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Java experts.
SALE $49.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122612 
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list

Re: [LTP] Spelling "succeded" VS. "succeeded"

[chrubis]

Hi!
> as said I am knew to LTP.
> 
> Such a typo makes grepping for special search-patterns difficult.
> I was searching for real failures by sorting out "expected" and
> "succeeded" lines.
> Even this is a trivial fix for you - it helped here :-).
> 
> Not sure what you are expecting from me.
> Might be I flood ltp-results ML with the results of my Linux-Next kernels.
> Unsure if this helps people or not.
> 
> Personally, I don't like the outputs of results...
> Especially start/end tags should include the (file)name of the testcase.
> But I had no deeper look into the results and only run the "lite" test-script.

Well the whole part of LTP that is used to run testcases is outdated and
messy. I've tried to start discussion about possible rewrite/replacement:

http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/message.php?msg_id=30192380

But so far nothing has been done.

> Looking into the README file I see I am missing some kernel-configs to
> be enabled.
> Not sure if I really what to dig that deep into LTP.

That most likely means that some tests would return unsupported rather
than success/fail.

-- 
Cyril Hrubis
chrubis@suse.cz

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Master Java SE, Java EE, Eclipse, Spring, Hibernate, JavaScript, jQuery
and much more. Keep your Java skills current with LearnJavaNow -
200+ hours of step-by-step video tutorials by Java experts.
SALE $49.99 this month only -- learn more at:
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learnmore_122612 
_______________________________________________
Ltp-list mailing list
Ltp-list@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/ltp-list