From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57018) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpBHL-0003D3-EP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 05:35:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bpBHJ-0002h1-DB for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 Sep 2016 05:35:50 -0400 Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 10:35:38 +0100 From: "Daniel P. Berrange" Message-ID: <20160928093538.GJ21583@redhat.com> Reply-To: "Daniel P. Berrange" References: <1474982001-20878-1-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com> <1474982001-20878-8-git-send-email-berrange@redhat.com> <97b870b5-5236-eca6-97b6-c1c6377e0762@redhat.com> <1de3b1c2-e810-2460-c817-9dc78613ddaf@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1de3b1c2-e810-2460-c817-9dc78613ddaf@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v14 07/19] qapi: don't pass two copies of TestInputVisitorData to tests List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-block@nongnu.org, Markus Armbruster , Max Reitz , Paolo Bonzini , Andreas =?utf-8?Q?F=C3=A4rber?= On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 05:12:04PM -0500, Eric Blake wrote: > On 09/27/2016 05:10 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 09/27/2016 08:13 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> The input_visitor_test_add() method was accepting an instance > >> of 'TestInputVisitorData' and passing it as the 'user_data' > >> parameter to test functions. The main 'TestInputVisitorData' > >> instance that was actually used, was meanwhile being allocated > >> automatically by the test framework fixture setup. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrange > >> --- > >> tests/test-qobject-input-visitor.c | 76 ++++++++++++++++---------------------- > >> 1 file changed, 32 insertions(+), 44 deletions(-) > >> > > > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake > > > > Having said that, I note that ALL callers now pass NULL for user_data. > If you plan on using it later in the series for something other than > NULL for some of the (new?) tests added at that point, it would be wise > to say so in the commit message; if not, I would suggest eliminating the > parameter altogether. Yep, later patches use this parameter for real, so I needed to move this bogus usage out of the way. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|