Re: [PATCH] tests: avoid sort-spinlock-abuse false positive under heavy load

[Jim Meyering]

James Youngman wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 17, 2011 at 11:04 AM, Jim Meyering <address@hidden> wrote:
>> +# This isn't terribly expensive, but it must not be run under heavy load.
>> +# Since the "very expensive" are already run only with -j1, adding this
>
> "very expensive" tests
>
>> +# test to the list ensures it still gets _some_ (albeit minimal) coverage
>> +# while not causing false-positive failures in day to day runs.
>> +very_expensive_

Thanks.
I've pushed this fix:

>From c8392b368e33ed286dd00bf0c66bbae462513d61 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: James Youngman <address@hidden>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2011 09:15:06 +0200
Subject: [PATCH] maint: typo: insert omitted word in test comment

* tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse: Fix typo:
s/"very expensive" are/"very expensive" tests are/
---
 tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse |    6 +++---
 1 files changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse b/tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse
index 0e1c86b..0894ec9 100755
--- a/tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse
+++ b/tests/misc/sort-spinlock-abuse
@@ -21,9 +21,9 @@
 print_ver_ sort

 # This isn't terribly expensive, but it must not be run under heavy load.
-# Since the "very expensive" are already run only with -j1, adding this
-# test to the list ensures it still gets _some_ (albeit minimal) coverage
-# while not causing false-positive failures in day to day runs.
+# Since the "very expensive" tests are already run only with -j1, adding
+# this test to the list ensures it still gets _some_ (albeit minimal)
+# coverage while not causing false-positive failures in day to day runs.
 very_expensive_

 grep '^#define HAVE_PTHREAD_T 1' "$CONFIG_HEADER" > /dev/null ||
--
1.7.6.rc2.4.g36bfb.dirty