From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mail-wm0-f48.google.com (mail-wm0-f48.google.com [74.125.82.48]) by mail.openembedded.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996CD785B6 for ; Thu, 9 Nov 2017 13:04:33 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-wm0-f48.google.com with SMTP id p75so17004341wmg.3 for ; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 05:04:34 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=intel-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:organization :mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TeZJEE+uN+PEPeAWYXvw7p3XCTmbV3ztf8VSrNphJk8=; b=ttigzvlfznYyA1rhTZZHf+ZJMxm4MLvNUpttd7qYbOpVB5cN+MgGfTH7QbUvEejHgm wim1laoyxoknw19eaa8UsZVOZgfQ1ELX2nC6wkMrs7VEzs8oOyANXTzZ0GGcIGh55dF5 mrlA/IKHGpLihDfhlJ4WzN04FHV05ht+8TlIROJJoFiKWblxSdwJRnOKHPmNTgV5TtF7 AMt9qFqu3zM4kcwx1rySRrxY+kCetGkXl54dkU2vmNp3HMtwZZCjzYSXTjEHP566+U9G xuQKuyl9Hf7cAGFYpJZDa1xfNerYGtoWqFchg6fNQQFBsXGEKigH2fU5J/4eUxtMumQg Soaw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:organization:mime-version:content-transfer-encoding; bh=TeZJEE+uN+PEPeAWYXvw7p3XCTmbV3ztf8VSrNphJk8=; b=WuFvFEHSJlhMtOO/sGmEy5DzqZeFhSDz9siV9s5MDcTy0ocOhK3v//t6ufnfd0wy9Q x/dyg3yG6fjMke0T8532RPDn6UOiQAoXPbSIovQIO1Ec+NAv9gqecIwo55Xyag55Yuf1 Ru97t8ITqPUMa8kd4mgQkAFBrvDpEUypilpeQctEGsfAHQSI8NTZi0zFXwmgqdLISfED /YNU5qjaXTbIEyRN+WUu1JqXXR03lYzbM57iqpdm1xhFCEvIPzWHA3Yrl6obXkIYpnpN Pp1+S5/hxXq/Bf01z6s86tZvaoP7DufFBCjQQHn932gY1Uxwbe7I70owVQGO0hZ6N5uV UHbg== X-Gm-Message-State: AJaThX7ebtWx4RYTzq3Cm+j3Ci47uUxl2zG/TOy2cd9wYM8KZIueA+wW Eh0EFXWccginaaID+CeA9SJ0 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGs4zMaHSGA7DF2GZCeybX5X//AGAlUY/gNqKDb9uKzAPSAT/5cAZSi3sgbTzC4cXqE49hfSpFtw3g== X-Received: by 10.28.150.194 with SMTP id y185mr313174wmd.54.1510232674279; Thu, 09 Nov 2017 05:04:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from pohly-mobl1 (p54BD58C1.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [84.189.88.193]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n14sm5500500wmh.37.2017.11.09.05.04.33 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Thu, 09 Nov 2017 05:04:33 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <1510232672.22094.31.camel@intel.com> From: Patrick Ohly To: Richard Purdie , openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 14:04:32 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1510228551-11516-2-git-send-email-richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> References: <1510228551-11516-1-git-send-email-richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> <1510228551-11516-2-git-send-email-richard.purdie@linuxfoundation.org> Organization: Intel GmbH, Dornacher Strasse 1, D-85622 Feldkirchen/Munich X-Mailer: Evolution 3.22.6-1+deb9u1 Mime-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] oeqa/runqemu: Only show stdout/stderr upon test failure X-BeenThere: openembedded-core@lists.openembedded.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Patches and discussions about the oe-core layer List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Nov 2017 13:04:34 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On Thu, 2017-11-09 at 11:55 +0000, Richard Purdie wrote: > +    # We only want to print runqemu stdout/stderr if there is a test > case failure > +    buffer = True Does the value matter? The other code only seems to check for the presence of the "buffer" attribute. Changing this to "buffer = False" and still get buffering would be surprising. -- Best Regards, Patrick Ohly The content of this message is my personal opinion only and although I am an employee of Intel, the statements I make here in no way represent Intel's position on the issue, nor am I authorized to speak on behalf of Intel on this matter.