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 <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 >
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
