From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:44951) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yugjn-0001cM-G4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 08:35:17 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yugjm-00015i-J3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 08:35:11 -0400 Message-ID: <555B2DF4.1030506@suse.de> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 14:35:00 +0200 From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= 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> <5515A577.2090008@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <5515A577.2090008@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 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: John Snow , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: pbonzini@redhat.com, qemu-block , stefanha@redhat.com, Peter Maydell Am 27.03.2015 um 19:46 schrieb John Snow: > 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 o= f >>> 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? >> >=20 > Playing it safe is totally fine by me, I was just curious. > My R-b stands. >=20 > Thank you, > --John >=20 >>> All the same: >>> >>> Reviewed-by: John Snow 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 --=20 SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; = HRB 21284 (AG N=C3=BCrnberg)