On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 10:26:30AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 22/04/2014 13:39, Dr. David Alan Gilbert ha scritto:
> >>>
> >>> I agree. In many cases, _TEST is a huge review warning sign that
> >>> subsections should have been used instead.
> >I can see how the subsections should be used in
Il 22/04/2014 13:39, Dr. David Alan Gilbert ha scritto:
>
> I agree. In many cases, _TEST is a huge review warning sign that
> subsections should have been used instead.
I can see how the subsections should be used in some cases, but I've
come across at least one case where _TEST was used to av
* Paolo Bonzini (pbonz...@redhat.com) wrote:
> Il 21/04/2014 13:34, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
> >Mostly just that I think that for vmstate definitions "this new field
> >was added in version X" is natural and normal, whereas other
> >test functions are odd and generally the exception. So a simple
>
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 21 April 2014 18:25, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> I can split the series at any point (they make sense even without the
>> rest).
>>
>> What about:
>>
>> 1,7,8: bug fixes/simplification
>>
>> 2-6: massive Unneeded version_minimum_id_old removal, but trivial per se
>>
>> 9-47:
Il 21/04/2014 13:34, Peter Maydell ha scritto:
Mostly just that I think that for vmstate definitions "this new field
was added in version X" is natural and normal, whereas other
test functions are odd and generally the exception. So a simple
way to indicate minimum version for fields seems useful
On 21 April 2014 18:25, Juan Quintela wrote:
> I can split the series at any point (they make sense even without the
> rest).
>
> What about:
>
> 1,7,8: bug fixes/simplification
>
> 2-6: massive Unneeded version_minimum_id_old removal, but trivial per se
>
> 9-47: New testing framework and tests f
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 21 April 2014 17:31, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Patches are easy to review in sequence, any of them is very simple, and
>> the few ones that are long (minimum_version_id_old) review is just
>> looking that the previous line is minimum_version_id = .
>
> But there are simply
On 21 April 2014 17:31, Juan Quintela wrote:
> Patches are easy to review in sequence, any of them is very simple, and
> the few ones that are long (minimum_version_id_old) review is just
> looking that the previous line is minimum_version_id = .
But there are simply _far too many_ of them in thi
Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 21 April 2014 15:39, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> - version_mimium_id_old patches splitted as for Peter requests in:
>> * usb
>> * x86
>> * arm
>> * ppc
>> * rest
>>
>> I splitted basically on that order, so, if a device appears on more
>> than one architecture,
On 21 April 2014 15:39, Juan Quintela wrote:
> - version_mimium_id_old patches splitted as for Peter requests in:
> * usb
> * x86
> * arm
> * ppc
> * rest
>
> I splitted basically on that order, so, if a device appears on more
> than one architecture, 1st one on the list wins
Thanks
Hi
New on v2:
- new testing harness
Now tests are smaller, and i would claim easier to understand
- now all things exported for vmstate.h are tested
structs/pointers/arrays and all combinations
ok, I am lying VMSTATE_OPENCODED_UNSAFE is not tested for obvious
reasons
- version_mimium_i
11 matches
Mail list logo
