From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Thomas Monjalon Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] test: fix missing NULL pointer checks Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2015 21:54:53 +0100 Message-ID: <4814181.SJr1RJ5GXF@xps13> References: <1422373493-9816-1-git-send-email-danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com> <1692949.19G84kSIeU@xps13> <20150210114638.GB18684@bricha3-MOBL3> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit Cc: dev-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org To: Daniel Mrzyglod Return-path: In-Reply-To: <20150210114638.GB18684@bricha3-MOBL3> List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: dev-bounces-VfR2kkLFssw@public.gmane.org Sender: "dev" 2015-02-10 11:46, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:18:19AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-01-27 13:06, Neil Horman: > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Daniel Mrzyglod wrote: > > > > In test_sched, we are missing NULL pointer checks after create_mempool() > > > > and rte_pktmbuf_alloc(). Add in these checks using TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL macros. > > > > > > > > VERIFY macro was removed and replaced by standard test ASSERTS from "test.h" header. > > > > This provides additional information to track when the failure occured. > > > > > > > > v3 changes: > > > > - remove VERIFY macro > > > > - fix spelling error. > > > > - change unproper comment > > > > > > > > v2 changes: > > > > - Replace all VERIFY macros instances by proper TEST_ASSERT* macros. > > > > - fix description > > > > > > > > v1 changes: > > > > - first iteration of patch using VERIFY macro. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod > > > > > > These TEST_ASSERT macros are no better than the VERIFY macro, they contain > > > exaxtly the same return issue that I outlined in my first post on the subject. > > > > Neil, you are suggesting to rework the assert macros of the unit tests. > > It should be another patch. > > Here, Daniel is improving the sched test with existing macros. > > I think it should be applied. > > > > +1 > I agree with Thomas here. Having looked at the V4 patch, I believe this V3 is > better, and that other cleanup should be done in separate patches. Applied, thanks