[PATCH] tests: CONFIGURE_DISABLE_SMP_CONFIGURATION
chrisj at rtems.org
Tue May 16 22:40:15 UTC 2017
On 16/05/2017 18:35, Sebastian Huber wrote:
> On 16/05/17 10:28, Chris Johns wrote:
>> What we do need to do is make sure the test results express the true
>> state. If a test is broken it should fail. If it is tagged an
>> expected-fail we do not consider it a regression.
> Loosing test coverage simply because a test uses a non-SMP feature
> somehow is not really great.
I am sorry you have lost me. If the test is for something not available
when SMP is enabled why build it? This can be handled in the build
system. If the test is using something not available on SMP and it can
be written to work on SMP by not using that feature then the test is
broken on SMP and I would expect a fail until it is fixed.
More information about the devel