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

[John Snow]

On 05/19/2015 08:35 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
> 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 <address@hidden>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <address@hidden>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    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 <address@hidden>
> 
> 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
> 

Oh yes, I forgot about this. Thanks!

I don't have a crazy large queue of ahci tests at the moment, so you
aren't hurting anything. :)

--js