From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36536) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yujhn-0005CX-9g for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 11:45:23 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yujhi-0007ZS-Nr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 11:45:18 -0400 Message-ID: <555B58FD.2090602@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 11:38:37 -0400 From: John Snow MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1427307623-2425-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <1427307623-2425-5-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de> <55133330.8050508@redhat.com> <551428A3.6090408@suse.de> <5515A577.2090008@redhat.com> <555B2DF4.1030506@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <555B2DF4.1030506@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] tests: Use qtest_add_data_func() consistently List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-block , stefanha@redhat.com, Peter Maydell On 05/19/2015 08:35 AM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: > Am 27.03.2015 um 19:46 schrieb John Snow: >> On 03/26/2015 11:41 AM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: >>> Am 25.03.2015 um 23:14 schrieb John Snow: >>>> On 03/25/2015 02:20 PM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber 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 >>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas F=C3=A4rber >>>>> --- >>>>> 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 >>>> consistency. >>>> >>>> ((Biased.)) >>>> >>>> Also, what happened to the subject of this mail? Are only patches 1-= 3 >>>> for-2.3? >>> >>> 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, >> --John >> >>>> All the same: >>>> >>>> Reviewed-by: John Snow >=20 > John, I've rebased this to apply on top of your fourth ahci-test > argument and applied it to qom-next now: > https://github.com/afaerber/qemu-cpu/commits/qom-next >=20 > Regards, > Andreas >=20 Oh yes, I forgot about this. Thanks! I don't have a crazy large queue of ahci tests at the moment, so you aren't hurting anything. :) --js