From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44843)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1ZYqab-00031g-Fw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Sep 2015 03:11:42 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1ZYqaX-0000jc-BJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Sep 2015 03:11:41 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59245)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <famz@redhat.com>) id 1ZYqaX-0000jY-5h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Sep 2015 03:11:37 -0400
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2015 15:11:34 +0800
From: Fam Zheng <famz@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20150907071134.GH3958@ad.nay.redhat.com>
References: <1438238370-16212-1-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<1438238370-16212-15-git-send-email-famz@redhat.com>
	<55BFB6C6.80902@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <55BFB6C6.80902@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 14/14] tests: add BlockJobTxn unit test
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>
Cc: Kevin Wolf <kwolf@redhat.com>, Jeff Cody <jcody@redhat.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, vsementsov@parallels.com, stefanha@redhat.com, John Snow <jsnow@redhat.com>

On Mon, 08/03 20:45, Max Reitz wrote:
> >+static void test_single_job(int expected)
> >+{
> >+    BlockJob *job;
> >+    BlockJobTxn *txn;
> >+    int result = -EINPROGRESS;
> >+
> >+    txn = block_job_txn_new();
> >+    job = test_block_job_start(1, true, expected, &result);
> 
> I think I'd like it better if 0 was passed if expected == -ECANCELED. This
> way, we don't know whether the test really was cancelled or whether it just
> exited normally, returning -ECANCELED because that was what was passed here.

The job will yield right after starting, so I think it is OK.

> >+    /* Now make job2 finish before the main loop kicks jobs.  This means
> >+     * simulates the race between a pending kick and another job completing.
> 
> Perhaps the "means" should be removed?

Yes.

> 
> Even if you don't decide to address any of my comments:
> 
> Reviewed-by: Max Reitz <mreitz@redhat.com>

Thanks,

Fam