From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Xiao Yang <yangx.jy@cn.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2020 20:04:58 +0800
Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 1/1] request_key04: Use TFAIL instead of TBROK
In-Reply-To: <20200226113757.GA24342@dell5510>
References: <20200226084249.29561-1-pvorel@suse.cz>
 <CAEemH2cMBtVV-1_RZb_UHN9rQF3sD2w-H2gS11BD2WHPTPzvgQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200226091824.GA2215@dell5510>
 <CAEemH2cXGOh=MX28kYvhFaHspHGXiVdGuNZeyN97+O3+bt1jGg@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200226113757.GA24342@dell5510>
Message-ID: <5E565EEA.5020900@cn.fujitsu.com>
List-Id: <ltp.lists.linux.it>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: ltp@lists.linux.it

On 2020/2/26 19:37, Petr Vorel wrote:
> Hi Li,
>
>>> ...
>>>>> obvious fix which I'd normally merge without sending to ML.
>>>>> But there are 19 tests which use tst_res(TBROK, and at least some of
>>>>> them are affected by this (i.e. don't unconditionally report any result
>>>>> before tst_res(TBROK), so we might want to fix it different way.
>>>> +1 for this fix.
>>> Thanks for your review.
>>>> By the way, do you think it makes sense to add build check parameters for
>>>> tst_res() too? Just like what we do for tst_brk() in commit 0738e3753c51.
>>> IMHO if we agree that tst_res(TBROK) is harmful and should be avoided
>>> entirely,
>> I agree.
>>> I'd be for adding this check.
>
>> In personally, I'd let tst_res() only accept 'TPASS, TFAIL, TINFO, TCONF,
>> TWARN'.
> +1. Cyril, Jan?
Hi Petr,

It is OK for me to add this check. :-)

Thanks,
Xiao Yang
> Kind regards,
> Petr
>