On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 01:31:04PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > On Mon, 31 Oct 2022 06:52:11 -0400 > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Oct 31, 2022 at 11:49:42AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote: > > > On Thu, 27 Oct 2022 11:11:48 -0400 > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > we had such a beautiful structure for updating > > > > expected files, designed to keep bisect working. > > > > It turns out that we ignored the result of > > > > the allow list checks unless all tables matched > > > > anyway. > > > > > > > > Sigh. > > > > > > strange, > > > it seems to be working fine (I mean white-listing) here > > > > it's pretty clear no? if we only check test_acpi_find_diff_allowed > > when all tables match anyway, it won't help test pass. > > currently all_tables_match is accumulated value that starts with 'true'
Problem is, it can be false because of another unrelated table. > and with the meaning 'do not explode unless at least a table was not > explicitly whitelisted' > [...] > > > > > > > > - all_tables_match = all_tables_match && > '&&' here serves as a trigger that lets flip always initial > 'all_tables_match = true' > > > > > + all_tables_match = all_tables_match || > once it changes to '||' the all_tables_match will never flip to false > and trigger > g_assert(all_tables_match); > at the end, when there is unexpected (non-whitelisted) table mismatch. > > Am I missing something? I agree this patch is bad. I did not record the issue I saw and don't really want to go debugging. Will drop for now. > > > > test_acpi_find_diff_allowed(exp_sdt); > > > > > > > > /* > >
