On Mon, Oct 30, 2023 at 11:52 AM Anand Jain <anand.jain@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Is it really worth doing this type of change? > > I mean it doesn't change the correctness of the test, doesn't make it > > more readable or > > maintainable, or even shorter... It seems pointless to me, no clear > > benefit of any sort. > > > > It fixes the cleanup bug that, when a test case failed, it failed to > remove the 2nd loop device. Then that's a very strong reason to make it a separate patch and explain the bug, instead of sneaking it in with other different changes without being explicit about it. Thanks. > > > I'm not suggesting a new test case. > > > > Remember the code you removed in v1? > > My suggestion was to instead of removing it, just surround it in the body of an > > if statement: > > > > if temp-fsid-feature-not-abailable; then > > run that code you tried to remove in v1 > > fi > > > > Isn't that a lot simpler and clear? > > Alright, I'll maintain the simplicity as mentioned above. Nevertheless, > implementing a thorough check for temp-fsid doesn't add much complexity > either. > > >
