On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 10:18 PM, Jonathon Jongsma <jjongsma@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, 2015-12-02 at 21:55 +0100, Fabiano Fidêncio wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 2, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Frediano Ziglio <fziglio@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> > From: Alon Levy <alon@xxxxxxxxx>
>> >
>> > ---
>> > server/tests/test_display_base.c | 2 +-
>> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>> >
>> > diff --git a/server/tests/test_display_base.c
>> > b/server/tests/test_display_base.c
>> > index c2c5705..575c704 100644
>> > --- a/server/tests/test_display_base.c
>> > +++ b/server/tests/test_display_base.c
>> > @@ -864,7 +864,7 @@ Test *test_new(SpiceCoreInterface *core)
>> >
>> > test->core = core;
>> > test->server = server;
>> > - test->wakeup_ms = 50;
>> > + test->wakeup_ms = 1;
>> > test->cursor_notify = NOTIFY_CURSOR_BATCH;
>> > // some common initialization for all display tests
>> > printf("TESTER: listening on port %d (unsecure)\n", port);
>> > --
>> > 2.4.3
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Spice-devel mailing list
>> > Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel
>>
>> NAK. There is no clear reason for changing the wakeup time. Better to
>> leave it out of the tree and add a doc (on spice-space.org) saying
>> that it my help to easily testing multiple client blocking.
>> Reviewed-by: Fabiano Fidêncio <fidencio@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Note that this is just a change in a test file (under server/tests/). So it's
> probably not something that would be useful to document on spice-space.org.
>
Hmm. You're right. So, it's probably okay to go as it as. I'm taking
my NAK back and giving an ACK to this patch.
>
_______________________________________________
Spice-devel mailing list
Spice-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/spice-devel