Re: [PATCH][next] selftests/x86: fix spelling mistake "FAILT" -> "FAIL"

[shuah]

On 7/2/19 4:42 PM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 02/07/2019 20:25, shuah wrote:
> > On 7/2/19 8:22 AM, shuah wrote:
> > > On 7/1/19 11:48 AM, Andy Lutomirski wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 6:04 AM Colin King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > >
> > > > > There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > ---
> > > > >  Â tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c | 2 +-
> > > > >  Â 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c
> > > > > b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c
> > > > > index 4602326b8f5b..a4f4d4cf22c3 100644
> > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c
> > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c
> > > > > @@ -451,7 +451,7 @@ static int test_vsys_x(void)
> > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ printf("[OK]\tExecuting the vsyscall page failed:
> > > > > #PF(0x%lx)\n",
> > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ segv_err);
> > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ } else {
> > > > > -ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ printf("[FAILT]\tExecution failed with the wrong
> > > > > error: #PF(0x%lx)\n",
> > > > > +ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ printf("[FAIL]\tExecution failed with the wrong
> > > > > error: #PF(0x%lx)\n",
> > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ segv_err);
> > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ return 1;
> > > > >  ÂÂÂÂÂÂÂÂ }
> > > > > --
> > > > > 2.20.1
> > > >
> > > > Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Thanks Andy!
> > >
> > > I will queue this up for 5.3
> > >
> > > -- Shuah
> >
> > Hi Colin,
> >
> > Checkpatch warning on this. Probably failed on the original patch.
> > Could you please fix the checkpatch warn, and send v2.
>
> If I split the line, I get another checkpatch warning:
>
> "WARNING: quoted string split across lines"
>
> Either way checkpatch emits a warning. The convention is to not break
> literal strings, and the line is only a few chars over the 80 char
> boundary, so the V1 of the patch is the way it should be IMHO.

As such this existed before your patch. I will apply v1.

thanks,
-- Shuah