[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] tests: Use qtest_add_data_func() consist
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] tests: Use qtest_add_data_func() consistently
Tue, 19 May 2015 14:35:00 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.6.0
Am 27.03.2015 um 19:46 schrieb John Snow:
> On 03/26/2015 11:41 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 25.03.2015 um 23:14 schrieb John Snow:
>>> On 03/25/2015 02:20 PM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>>> Replace uses of g_test_add_data_func() for QTest test cases.
>>>> It is still valid to use it for any non-QTest test cases,
>>>> which are not run for multiple target binaries.
>>>> Suggested-by: John Snow <address@hidden>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <address@hidden>
>>>> tests/ahci-test.c | 9 ++-------
>>>> tests/e1000-test.c | 4 ++--
>>>> tests/eepro100-test.c | 5 ++---
>>>> tests/endianness-test.c | 18 +++++++++---------
>>>> tests/pc-cpu-test.c | 13 ++++++-------
>>>> tests/qom-test.c | 4 ++--
>>>> 6 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 30 deletions(-)
>>> Seems fine to me. The time lost with the nested printfs during test
>>> initialization is likely not worth crying over in the glorious name of
>>> Also, what happened to the subject of this mail? Are only patches 1-3
>> Yes, I tend to be conservative during the Hard Freeze and 4/4 is not
>> fixing a bug or improving test coverage. I don't think it would harm,
>> but I don't push for it. Opinions?
> Playing it safe is totally fine by me, I was just curious.
> My R-b stands.
> Thank you,
>>> All the same:
>>> Reviewed-by: John Snow <address@hidden>
John, I've rebased this to apply on top of your fourth ahci-test
argument and applied it to qom-next now:
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] tests: Use qtest_add_data_func() consistently,
Andreas Färber <=