Re: [PATCH] p5310: Fix broken && chain in performance test

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 03:34:19PM -0700, Stefan Beller wrote:

> > Thanks.  How did you find this (does the auto &&-chain test apply to
> > t/perf stuff as well)?
> 
> Apparently the &&-chain tests for it as I got a warning for it while
> benchmarking some changes in ALLOC_GROW. (which originally
> should have fixed the coverity false positives, but I was side tracked
> wondering about performance)

That makes sense; we use test_expect_success here, so I think it is good
for it to check that we are actually creating a sane exit status.

It looks like we do not extend the same protection to test_perf (it uses
test_eval_, bnot test_run_). That is probably OK, as those tests are
more about measuring the time than about correctness. OTOH, we do notice
when a test_perf reports failure, so perhaps it would make sense to
extend &&-chaining checks there.

-Peff
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Kernel Development]     [Gcc Help]     [IETF Annouce]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Networking]     [Security]     [V4L]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux SCSI]     [Fedora Users]