Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 3/6] x86/pmu: expect failure with nmi_watchdog

From: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
To: "Radim Krčmář" <rkrcmar@redhat.com>
Cc: kvm@vger.kernel.org, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH kvm-unit-tests 3/6] x86/pmu: expect failure with nmi_watchdog
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 09:33:42 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151215153342.GA5373@hawk.localdomain> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151215130100.GB20852@potion.brq.redhat.com>

On Tue, Dec 15, 2015 at 02:01:01PM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> 2015-12-14 16:05-0600, Andrew Jones:
> > On Mon, Dec 14, 2015 at 10:24:18PM +0100, Radim Krčmář wrote:
> >> diff --git a/x86/pmu.c b/x86/pmu.c
> >> @@ -291,7 +292,7 @@ static void check_counters_many(void)
> >>  		if (!verify_counter(&cnt[i]))
> >>  			break;
> >>  
> >> -	report("all counters", i == n);
> >> +	report_xfail("all counters", host_nmi_watchdog, i == n);
> > 
> > How about outputting "host_nmi_watchdog=%d" as well?
> 
> It's already implied in the output.  Prefix will be XPASS/XFAIL if
> host_nmi_watchdog=1 and PASS/FAIL otherwise.
> 
> Should it still be explicitly printed?

I think it could help interpret the results without needing to read
the code, but these types of tests generally require reading the
code...

drew

> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html