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 <js...@redhat.com> >>>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@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 <js...@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)
