2015-02-10 11:46, Bruce Richardson: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:18:19AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote: > > 2015-01-27 13:06, Neil Horman: > > > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Daniel Mrzyglod wrote: > > > > In test_sched, we are missing NULL pointer checks after create_mempool() > > > > and rte_pktmbuf_alloc(). Add in these checks using TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL > > > > macros. > > > > > > > > VERIFY macro was removed and replaced by standard test ASSERTS from > > > > "test.h" header. > > > > This provides additional information to track when the failure occured. > > > > > > > > v3 changes: > > > > - remove VERIFY macro > > > > - fix spelling error. > > > > - change unproper comment > > > > > > > > v2 changes: > > > > - Replace all VERIFY macros instances by proper TEST_ASSERT* macros. > > > > - fix description > > > > > > > > v1 changes: > > > > - first iteration of patch using VERIFY macro. > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod at intel.com> > > > > > > These TEST_ASSERT macros are no better than the VERIFY macro, they contain > > > exaxtly the same return issue that I outlined in my first post on the > > > subject. > > > > Neil, you are suggesting to rework the assert macros of the unit tests. > > It should be another patch. > > Here, Daniel is improving the sched test with existing macros. > > I think it should be applied. > > > > +1 > I agree with Thomas here. Having looked at the V4 patch, I believe this V3 is > better, and that other cleanup should be done in separate patches.
Applied, thanks
