Hi John,
On Fri, May 08, 2020 at 04:56:10AM +0000, John Stultz wrote:
> When I added the expected error testing, I forgot I need to set
> the return to zero when we successfully see an error.
>
> Without this change we only end up testing a single heap
> before the test quits.
>
The fix looks fine - feel free to add my r-b.
However taking a new look at the tests, what do you think about
conceptually replacing the 'break's with 'continue's? Is there a
reason to skip all the other heaps if one of them fails a test?
Thanks,
-Brian
> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Sumit Semwal <sumit.semwal@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Benjamin Gaignard <benjamin.gaignard@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: Brian Starkey <brian.starkey@xxxxxxx>
> Cc: Laura Abbott <labbott@xxxxxxxxxx>
> Cc: "Andrew F. Davis" <afd@xxxxxx>
> Cc: linux-kselftest@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Signed-off-by: John Stultz <john.stultz@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/dmabuf-heaps/dmabuf-heap.c | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/dmabuf-heaps/dmabuf-heap.c b/tools/testing/selftests/dmabuf-heaps/dmabuf-heap.c
> index cd5e1f602ac9..909da9cdda97 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/dmabuf-heaps/dmabuf-heap.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/dmabuf-heaps/dmabuf-heap.c
> @@ -351,6 +351,7 @@ static int test_alloc_errors(char *heap_name)
> }
>
> printf("Expected error checking passed\n");
> + ret = 0;
> out:
> if (dmabuf_fd >= 0)
> close(dmabuf_fd);
> --
> 2.17.1
>
