| Message ID | 20201103011457.2959989-1-hskinnemoen@google.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | tests/qtest: npcm7xx test fixes | expand |
Cc'ing Daniel (patches 1-3) & Marc-André (2). On 11/3/20 2:14 AM, Havard Skinnemoen via wrote: > This series contains a fix for the randomness calculation in npcm7xx_rng-test. > It also makes test failures fatal. The last patch would have dumped the random > data to stderr if the randomness test fails, except now that failures are > fatal, it never actually gets a chance to do that. > > It may not make sense to apply all three, but I'd definitely take (1), and I'll > leave it up to you whether to apply (2), (3) or both. > > Havard Skinnemoen (3): > tests/qtest/npcm7xx_rng-test: count runs properly > tests/qtest/npcm7xx: Don't call g_test_set_nonfatal_assertions > tests/qtest/npcm7xx_rng-test: dump random data on failure > > tests/qtest/npcm7xx_gpio-test.c | 1 - > tests/qtest/npcm7xx_rng-test.c | 15 +++++++++++++-- > tests/qtest/npcm7xx_timer-test.c | 1 - > tests/qtest/npcm7xx_watchdog_timer-test.c | 1 - > 4 files changed, 13 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >
On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 01:52, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote: > > Cc'ing Daniel (patches 1-3) & Marc-André (2). > > On 11/3/20 2:14 AM, Havard Skinnemoen via wrote: > > This series contains a fix for the randomness calculation in npcm7xx_rng-test. > > It also makes test failures fatal. The last patch would have dumped the random > > data to stderr if the randomness test fails, except now that failures are > > fatal, it never actually gets a chance to do that. > > > > It may not make sense to apply all three, but I'd definitely take (1), and I'll > > leave it up to you whether to apply (2), (3) or both. > > > > Havard Skinnemoen (3): > > tests/qtest/npcm7xx_rng-test: count runs properly > > tests/qtest/npcm7xx: Don't call g_test_set_nonfatal_assertions > > tests/qtest/npcm7xx_rng-test: dump random data on failure I've applied patch 1 to target-arm.next but will wait to see if anybody has an opinion about patches 2 and 3. thanks -- PMM
On Tue, 10 Nov 2020 at 10:48, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Nov 2020 at 01:52, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > Cc'ing Daniel (patches 1-3) & Marc-André (2). > > > > On 11/3/20 2:14 AM, Havard Skinnemoen via wrote: > > > This series contains a fix for the randomness calculation in npcm7xx_rng-test. > > > It also makes test failures fatal. The last patch would have dumped the random > > > data to stderr if the randomness test fails, except now that failures are > > > fatal, it never actually gets a chance to do that. > > > > > > It may not make sense to apply all three, but I'd definitely take (1), and I'll > > > leave it up to you whether to apply (2), (3) or both. > > > > > > Havard Skinnemoen (3): > > > tests/qtest/npcm7xx_rng-test: count runs properly > > > tests/qtest/npcm7xx: Don't call g_test_set_nonfatal_assertions > > > tests/qtest/npcm7xx_rng-test: dump random data on failure > > I've applied patch 1 to target-arm.next but will wait to see > if anybody has an opinion about patches 2 and 3. Had a brief conversation on IRC with Dan about this. The nicest thing to do seems to be to call g_test_set_nonfatal_assertions() somewhere more generic, but just at the moment there isn't a place for that. So for the moment I'm going to take patch 3, and we'll leave the g_test_set_nonfatal_assertions in the npcm7xx tests; as and when we make that setting more generally we can remove these specific calls. thanks -- PMM