Re: [PATCH v2 12/14] tests/test-logging: Fix test for -dfilter 0..0xffffffffffffffff

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

On 4/22/20 4:49 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
> On 4/22/20 8:35 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > Hi Markus,
> >
> > On 4/22/20 3:07 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> > > Fixes: 58e19e6e7914354242a67442d0006f9e31684d1a
> > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <address@hidden>
> > > ---
> > >   tests/test-logging.c | 4 ++--
> > >   1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/tests/test-logging.c b/tests/test-logging.c
> > > index 6387e4933f..8580b82420 100644
> > > --- a/tests/test-logging.c
> > > +++ b/tests/test-logging.c
> > > @@ -73,10 +73,10 @@ static void test_parse_range(void)
> > >       g_assert(qemu_log_in_addr_range(UINT64_MAX));
> > >       g_assert_false(qemu_log_in_addr_range(UINT64_MAX - 1));
> > > -    qemu_set_dfilter_ranges("0..0xffffffffffffffff", &err);
> > > +    qemu_set_dfilter_ranges("0..0xffffffffffffffff", &error_abort);
> >
> > Why sometime use this form, ...
>
> This call must not produce an error (if it does, the test aborts, 
> proving we had a bug).
>
> > >       g_assert(qemu_log_in_addr_range(0));
> > >       g_assert(qemu_log_in_addr_range(UINT64_MAX));
> > > -
> > > +
> > >       qemu_set_dfilter_ranges("2..1", &err);
> > >       error_free_or_abort(&err);
> >
> > ... and then this other form?
>
> This call must produce an error (if we do not diagnose the caller's 
> error, our code is buggy, and the test must fail)

Ah OK it makes sense, thanks!