On 12/5/17 8:24 pm, Sebastian Huber wrote: > Mark tests that require review due to > CONFIGURE_DISABLE_SMP_CONFIGURATION.
If a test fails it fails. I feel the test results need to correctly express the failures and we should not masks them in the way. I do not agree with changes that suppress a failure. I do not see SMP as any special over other reasons a test fails and I hope we do not start adding them. We exclude tests from being built because they do not fit into the target resources and that is fixed, bounded. The correct method to manage this is to tag the test as `expected-fail` and let `rtems-test` manage the results. The only problem is scoping the tags based on the type of build. I have not handled that case and it seems from what we have discovered here I need to handle it. I will look at the tagging format in the coming week and update the ticket once I have something. Chris _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@rtems.org http://lists.rtems.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
