On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 17:08:48 -0700, Alistair Francis wrote:
> diff --git a/tests/atomic_add-bench.c b/tests/atomic_add-bench.c
> index caa1e8e689..41ba1600c0 100644
> --- a/tests/atomic_add-bench.c
> +++ b/tests/atomic_add-bench.c
> @@ -29,7 +29,7 @@ static const char commands_string[] =
> static void usage_complete(char *argv[])
> {
> fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s [options]\n", argv[0]);
> - fprintf(stderr, "options:\n%s\n", commands_string);
> + fprintf(stderr, "options:\n%s", commands_string);
> }
We do want that trailing \n, unless we move it to commands_string.
Also, I think using error_report here would be confusing -- this is a standalone
test program with as little QEMU-specific knowledge as possible (QemuThreads
are used for portability); using error_report here is confusing (this is not
an error).
> diff --git a/tests/check-qlit b/tests/check-qlit
> new file mode 100755
> index
> 0000000000000000000000000000000000000000..950429524e3eb07e6daed1fe01caad0f5d554809
> GIT binary patch
> literal 272776
> zcmeEvdwf*Ywf~vPB$){zGeCghJ;($So{10*LNEgfoIs*MKvBRDLV(l&F`3b5QKOS6
? I don't know what this is, I don't seem to have this binary in my
checked out tree.
(snips thousands of lines)
> diff --git a/tests/qht-bench.c b/tests/qht-bench.c
> index 11c1cec766..2637d601a9 100644
> --- a/tests/qht-bench.c
> +++ b/tests/qht-bench.c
> @@ -5,6 +5,7 @@
> * See the COPYING file in the top-level directory.
> */
> #include "qemu/osdep.h"
> +#include "qemu/error-report.h"
> #include "qemu/processor.h"
> #include "qemu/atomic.h"
> #include "qemu/qht.h"
> @@ -89,7 +90,7 @@ static const char commands_string[] =
> static void usage_complete(int argc, char *argv[])
> {
> fprintf(stderr, "Usage: %s [options]\n", argv[0]);
> - fprintf(stderr, "options:\n%s\n", commands_string);
> + fprintf(stderr, "options:\n%s", commands_string);
Same as above: this removes the necessary trailing \n.
> exit(-1);
> }
>
> @@ -328,7 +329,7 @@ static void htable_init(void)
> retries++;
> }
> }
> - fprintf(stderr, " populated after %zu retries\n", retries);
> + error_report(" populated after %zu retries", retries);
> }
ditto -- I'd rather keep fprintf(stderr) here, it's less confusing.
Thanks,
Emilio
