Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/4] tests: Use qtest_add_data_func() consistently

["Andreas Färber" <afaerber@suse.de>]

Am 27.03.2015 um 19:46 schrieb John Snow:
> On 03/26/2015 11:41 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 25.03.2015 um 23:14 schrieb John Snow:
>>> On 03/25/2015 02:20 PM, Andreas Färber 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 <jsnow@redhat.com>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de>
>>>> ---
>>>>    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 <jsnow@redhat.com>

John, I've rebased this to apply on top of your fourth ahci-test
argument and applied it to qom-next now:
https://github.com/afaerber/qemu-cpu/commits/qom-next

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)