Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 5/5] s390x: SCLP unit test

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

 



On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:55:48 +0100
David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> On 04.11.19 12:49, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:
> > On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 12:31:32 +0100
> > David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >   
> >> On 04.11.19 12:29, Claudio Imbrenda wrote:  
> >>> On Mon, 4 Nov 2019 11:58:20 +0100
> >>> David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [...]
> >>>      
> >>>> Can we just please rename all "cx" into something like "len"? Or
> >>>> is there a real need to have "cx" in there?  
> >>>
> >>> if cx is such a nuisance to you, sure, I can rename it to i  
> >>
> >> better than random characters :)  
> > 
> > will be in v3
> >   
> >>>      
> >>>> Also, I still dislike "test_one_sccb". Can't we just just do
> >>>> something like
> >>>>
> >>>> expect_pgm_int();
> >>>> rc = test_one_sccb(...)
> >>>> report("whatever pgm", rc == WHATEVER);
> >>>> report("whatever rc", lc->pgm_int_code == WHATEVER);
> >>>>
> >>>> In the callers to make these tests readable and cleanup
> >>>> test_one_sccb(). I don't care if that produces more LOC as long
> >>>> as I can actually read and understand the test cases.  
> >>>
> >>> if you think that makes it more readable, ok I guess...
> >>>
> >>> consider that the output will be unreadable, though
> >>>      
> >>
> >> I think his will turn out more readable.  
> > 
> > two output lines per SCLP call? I  don't think so  
> 
> To clarify, we don't always need two checks. E.g., I would like to
> see instead of
> 
> +static void test_sccb_too_short(void)
> +{
> +	int cx;
> +
> +	for (cx = 0; cx < 8; cx++)
> +		if (!test_one_run(valid_code, pagebuf, cx, 8,
> PGM_BIT_SPEC, 0))
> +			break;
> +
> +	report("SCCB too short", cx == 8);
> +}
> 
> Something like
> 
> static void test_sccb_too_short(void)
> {
> 	int i;
> 
> 	for (i = 0; i < 8; i++) {
> 		expect_pgm_int();
> 		test_one_sccb(...); // or however that will be called
> 		check_pgm_int_code(PGM_INT_CODE_SPECIFICATION);
> 	}
> }
> 
> If possible.
> 

so, thousands of output lines for the whole test, ok




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Development]     [Kernel Newbies]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite Info]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Linux Media]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux