From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38390) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbZH4-0007jw-Gx for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:46:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YbZH0-00079N-I8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:46:30 -0400 Message-ID: <5515A577.2090008@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2015 14:46:15 -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> In-Reply-To: <551428A3.6090408@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed 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, stefanha@redhat.com, qemu-block , Peter Maydell 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 > > Thanks, > Andreas >