Hi
On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 8:34 PM Auger Eric <eric.au...@redhat.com> wrote:
> Hi Marc-Andre
>
> On 8/27/20 6:18 PM, marcandre.lur...@redhat.com wrote:
> > From: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> >
> > According to g_tree_foreach() documentation:
> > "The tree may not be modified while iterating over it (you can't
> > add/remove items)."
>
> Hum I did not see that.
> >
> > Fixes: 9a85e4b8f6 ("migration: Support gtree migration")
> > Cc: Eric Auger <eric.au...@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lur...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > tests/test-vmstate.c | 3 +--
> > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 2 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/test-vmstate.c b/tests/test-vmstate.c
> > index f7b3868881..31aefa78f0 100644
> > --- a/tests/test-vmstate.c
> > +++ b/tests/test-vmstate.c
> > @@ -1078,7 +1078,6 @@ static gboolean diff_tree(gpointer key, gpointer
> value, gpointer data)
> > struct match_node_data d = {tp->tree2, key, value};
> >
> > g_tree_foreach(tp->tree2, tp->match_node, &d);
> > - g_tree_remove(tp->tree1, key);
> it does not test the same thing I am afraid. If one of the trees
> contains more elements than the others this won't be detected.
>
>
- assert(g_tree_nnodes(tree1) == 0);
Was simply checking that all nodes from tree1 were deleted.
Whatever else must have been checked elsewhere or differently by new code.
> Also there is another case of removal inside the traversal in the
> match_node(): in match_interval_mapping_node() and match_domain_node()
>
>
Yes, but they don't update the traversed tree.
Thanks
>
> Eric
>
>
> > return false;
> > }
> >
> > @@ -1088,7 +1087,7 @@ static void compare_trees(GTree *tree1, GTree
> *tree2,
> > struct tree_cmp_data tp = {tree1, tree2, function};
> >
> > g_tree_foreach(tree1, diff_tree, &tp);
> > - assert(g_tree_nnodes(tree1) == 0);> +
> g_tree_destroy(g_tree_ref(tree1));
> > assert(g_tree_nnodes(tree2) == 0);
> > }
> >
> >
>
>
>
--
Marc-André Lureau
