lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2018]   [Apr]   [25]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH] selftests:firmware: fixes a call to a wrong function name
On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 09:39:02AM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 23, 2018 at 7:10 AM, Jeffrin Jose T <ahiliation@yahoo.co.in> wrote:
> > This is a patch to the tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> > file which fixes a bug which calls to a wrong function name,which in turn
> > blocks the execution of certain tests.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Jeffrin Jose T <jeffrin@rajagiritech.edu.in>
> >
> > ---
> > tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh | 2 +-
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> > index 06d638e9dc62..cffdd4eb0a57 100755
> > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_run_tests.sh
> > @@ -66,5 +66,5 @@ if [ -f $FW_FORCE_SYSFS_FALLBACK ]; then
> > run_test_config_0003
> > else
> > echo "Running basic kernel configuration, working with your config"
> > - run_test
> > + run_tests
> > fi
>
> I find it confusing that run_tests() uses $1 and $2 but later ignores
> them unless -f $FW_FORCE_SYSFS_FALLBACK, which is checked at both the
> top level and in proc_set_*_fallback()... I'd expected the test to
> happen only in run_tests() and have it removed from from
> proc_set_*_fallback().
>
> Regardless, the above patch is correct to run the tests. :)

Thanks, I'll go queue this up.

greg k-h

\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2018-04-25 17:28    [W:0.043 / U:0.240 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site