On 08/12/2013 05:54 AM, Peter Krempa wrote:
On 08/02/13 23:47, Eric Blake wrote:
The logic set up in previous patch for exposing VIR_TEST_EXPENSIVE to individual tests is as follows:
+++ b/tests/testutils.c @@ -66,6 +66,7 @@
static unsigned int testDebug = -1; static unsigned int testVerbose = -1; +static unsigned int testExpensive = -1;
Pre-existing, but initializing unsigneds to -1 is really awkward ...
It's shorthand for initializing to UINT_MAX.
static unsigned int testOOM = 0; static size_t testCounter = 0; @@ -581,6 +582,13 @@ virTestGetVerbose(void) { return testVerbose || virTestGetDebug(); }
+unsigned int
A boolean would be enough given the return values of virTestGetFlag and the expected results.
For virTestGetFlag, we generally only care about 0 or 1; but since it uses the same helper function of virTestGetFlag, which DOES care about the numeric value (ie. VIR_TEST_DEBUG=2 gives more output than VIR_TEST_DEBUG=1), that explains why the helper function returns an integer, and why I copied that paradigm.
ACK anyways, my comments are pointing out stuff that was pre-existing.
Thanks for the review; I'll push shortly as-is; I'm not sure it's worth changing the types of these functions. -- Eric Blake eblake redhat com +1-919-301-3266 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org