On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 12:59:35PM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote:
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 04:27:33PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
We want to check if the long option conflicts with one from the core.
The check for conflicting short option already exists just above.
No, this one is checking that the val (the 0) doesn't conflict.
My point is that this check is already done above. We don't need to do
it again.
If you insist, then we will need to raise it to magic number 500,
because 0 won't be a conflict after this series.
Lucas De Marchi
--
Petri Latvala
Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi@xxxxxxxxx>
---
lib/tests/igt_conflicting_args.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/tests/igt_conflicting_args.c b/lib/tests/igt_conflicting_args.c
index c357b6c5..d8be138e 100644
--- a/lib/tests/igt_conflicting_args.c
+++ b/lib/tests/igt_conflicting_args.c
@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
internal_assert_wsignaled(do_fork(), SIGABRT);
/* conflict on long option 'val' representations */
- long_options[0] = (struct option) { "iterations", required_argument, NULL, 0};
+ long_options[0] = (struct option) { "list-subtests", required_argument, NULL, 0};
short_options = "";
internal_assert_wsignaled(do_fork(), SIGABRT);
--
2.21.0
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
_______________________________________________
Intel-gfx mailing list
Intel-gfx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx
