On Thursday, 2 August 2018 12:28:45 CEST Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 10:17:32AM +0200, Bjoern Walk wrote:
> Pino Toscano <ptoscano(a)redhat.com> [2018-08-02, 10:02AM +0200]:
> > I do not think this patch is correct: we are dealing with random bytes,
> > so there is no "endianness" for them.
>
> Well, it's not incorrect either, isn't it? I agree that endianness
> doesn't matter for random data, but in the same time, it doesn't hurt to
> have the same random data generated on big- and little-endian machines.
Not sure I understand -- since it's random data, you cannot have it
"the same", no matter which endianness the machine has.
> And it gives an easy and future-proof fix for the mocked tests.
IMHO every mocked test has its own behaviour, and thus the mocking
needs to reflect that.
Lets just modijfy tests/virrandommock.c to add mocking of
virRandomBits
alongside virRandomBytes.
I don't see how it will help, since all virRandomBits does is calling
virRandomBytes.
I still did not see any complaints about my patch to fix viriscsitest
(since the problem is specific for it), what about ACKing it then?
--
Pino Toscano