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

[Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>]

On 02/07/2019 23:48, shuah wrote:
> 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@canonical.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> From: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There is an spelling mistake in an a test error message. Fix it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Signed-off-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king@canonical.com>
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>    tools/testing/selftests/x86/test_vsyscall.c | 2 +-
>>>>>>    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)
>>>>>>                   printf("[OK]\tExecuting the vsyscall page failed:
>>>>>> #PF(0x%lx)\n",
>>>>>>                          segv_err);
>>>>>>           } else {
>>>>>> -               printf("[FAILT]\tExecution failed with the wrong
>>>>>> error: #PF(0x%lx)\n",
>>>>>> +               printf("[FAIL]\tExecution failed with the wrong
>>>>>> error: #PF(0x%lx)\n",
>>>>>>                          segv_err);
>>>>>>                   return 1;
>>>>>>           }
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> 2.20.1
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Acked-by: Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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.

Cool, thanks Shuah.
> 
> thanks,
> -- Shuah