From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752825AbbDBKOp (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2015 06:14:45 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38685 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751448AbbDBKOo (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Apr 2015 06:14:44 -0400 Message-ID: <551D1692.1050302@redhat.com> Date: Thu, 02 Apr 2015 06:14:42 -0400 From: Prarit Bhargava User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131028 Thunderbird/17.0.10 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Stultz CC: lkml , Shuah Khan , Thomas Gleixner , Richard Cochran , Tyler Baker Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kselftests: timers: Make set-timer-lat fail more gracefully for !CAP_WAKE_ALARM References: <1427327073-19011-1-git-send-email-john.stultz@linaro.org> <5513EE03.1020507@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 03/26/2015 12:29 PM, John Stultz wrote: > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:31 AM, Prarit Bhargava wrote: >> On 03/25/2015 07:44 PM, John Stultz wrote: >>> + printf("%-22s %s missing CAP_WAKE_ALARM? : [UNSUPPORTED]\n", >>> + clockstring(clock_id), >>> + flags ? "ABSTIME":"RELTIME"); >> >> Something to think about: Do you want to write these tests to be more human >> readable or machine readable? In theory with awk I guess it doesn't matter too >> much, however, it is something that we should think about moving forward. > > So this came up at ELC in a few discussions. Right now there isn't any\ Sorry, I'm not familiar with ELC? What is that Acronym for? > established output format, but there's some nice and simple > infrastructure for counting pass/fails. Okay that's great. > > However, in talking to Tyler, I know he has started looking at how to > integrate the selftests into our automated infrastructure and was > interested in how we improve the output parsing for reports. So there > is interest in improving this, and I'm open to whatever changes might > be needed (adding extra arguments to the test to put them into "easy > parse" mode or whatever). Thanks John. P. > > thanks > -john >