From: <ch...@su...> - 2013-01-16 14:05:23
|
Hi! > While looking trough the results especially searching for some > pattern, I noticed the different spelling of the word "succeeded" VS. > "succeded". > The spell-checker integrated in Firefox v18.0 tells me "succeeded" > with double-e is correct. > > [ SUCCEDED - one "E" ] > > $ egrep -i 'error|fail' > runltplite-results_3.8.0-rc3-next20130116-2-iniza-generic.txt | egrep > -i succeded > flock01 1 TPASS : flock() succeded with Shared Lock, returned > error number=0 > flock01 2 TPASS : flock() succeded with Unlock, returned error number=0 > flock01 3 TPASS : flock() succeded with Exclusive Lock, > returned error number=0 > > [ SUCCEEDED - double "E" ] > > $ egrep -i 'error|fail' > runltplite-results_3.8.0-rc3-next20130116-2-iniza-generic.txt | egrep > -i succeeded > madvise02 5 TFAIL : madvise succeeded unexpectedly > open call succeededopen failed with EACCES as expectedopen call > succeeded<<<execution_status>>> > > AFAICS flock01.c needs to be corrected: > > --- ltp-full-20120903.orig/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock01.c > 2012-09-03 06:39:27.000000000 +0200 > +++ ltp-full-20120903/testcases/kernel/syscalls/flock/flock01.c > 2013-01-16 14:12:36.597859952 +0100 > @@ -128,7 +128,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv) > continue; /*next loop for MTKERNEL */ > } else { > tst_resm(TPASS, > - "flock() succeded with %s, > returned error number=%d", > + "flock() succeeded with %s, > returned error number=%d", > test_cases[i].opt, TEST_ERRNO); > } > > Not sure if you like that patch sent via git-email as a separate patch? There is no need for such elaborate explanation for a patch fixing a typo ;). The ideal way of sending a patches here is unified diff with signed-of-by line (you can generate these by git format-patch or use git send-email to mail them directly). -- Cyril Hrubis ch...@su... |