From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 26711 invoked by alias); 2 Aug 2013 08:41:09 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org Received: (qmail 26685 invoked by uid 89); 2 Aug 2013 08:41:08 -0000 X-Spam-SWARE-Status: No, score=-6.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_05,KHOP_THREADED,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_W,RCVD_IN_HOSTKARMA_WL,RDNS_NONE,SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS autolearn=no version=3.3.1 Received: from Unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.84/v0.84-167-ge50287c) with ESMTP; Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:41:08 +0000 Received: from int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.25]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r728exVs004622 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 2 Aug 2013 04:40:59 -0400 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (ovpn01.gateway.prod.ext.ams2.redhat.com [10.39.146.11]) by int-mx12.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id r728ev4S019193; Fri, 2 Aug 2013 04:40:58 -0400 Message-ID: <51FB7097.8020900@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 02 Aug 2013 08:41:00 -0000 From: Pedro Alves User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130625 Thunderbird/17.0.7 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Tom Tromey CC: Yao Qi , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/4] introduce parallel mode References: <1374073124-23602-1-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <1374073124-23602-3-git-send-email-tromey@redhat.com> <51E7E27E.5030800@codesourcery.com> <87txjsc7mw.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> <51E86A71.3000301@codesourcery.com> <878v0lfb62.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <878v0lfb62.fsf@fleche.redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2013-08/txt/msg00063.txt.bz2 On 08/01/2013 08:44 PM, Tom Tromey wrote: >>>>>> "Yao" == Yao Qi writes: > > Yao> Probably, we can send the output to the log, for example > Yao> inotify_[pid].log, and check whether there is something written into > Yao> the log in the test somewhere. If there is, emit a FAIL, which would > Yao> be more attractive, like: > > I am not sure about emitting a FAIL. There won't be a corresponding > PASS. It would be more noticeable, which is a plus; but in the absence > of a conflict it isn't clearly a FAIL-worthy bug -- even after my series > we'll have a few of these. I guess a WARNING could be a better fit: warning "string number" Declares detection of a minor error in the test case itself. warning writes in the log files a message beginning with `WARNING', appending the argument string. Use warning rather than error for cases (such as communication failure to be followed by a retry) where the test case can recover from the error. -- Pedro Alves