On Fri, Mar 14, 2014 at 08:05:10PM +0100, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 13, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Patrik Flykt
> <patrik.fl...@linux.intel.com> wrote:
> > ---
> > src/libsystemd-network/test-dhcp-client.c | 16 ++++++++++++++++
> > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+)
> >
> > diff --git a/src/libsystemd-network/test-dhcp-client.c
> > b/src/libsystemd-network/test-dhcp-client.c
> > index cfc75ae..9509eec 100644
> > --- a/src/libsystemd-network/test-dhcp-client.c
> > +++ b/src/libsystemd-network/test-dhcp-client.c
> > @@ -44,6 +44,15 @@ static bool verbose = false;
> > static int test_fd[2];
> > static test_callback_recv_t callback_recv;
> > static be32_t xid;
> > +static sd_event_source *test_hangcheck;
> > +
> > +static int test_dhcp_hangcheck(sd_event_source *s, uint64_t usec,
> > + void *userdata)
> > +{
> > + assert(false);
>
> I guess this should be assert_se() ?
Yeah, assert_se is slightly better, because of the strange way that we define
those
macros. Strictly speaking, since"false" has no side effects, it doesn't seem
right
to use it in assert_se. But either of those is not verbose enough: if it is ever
triggered some better message should be shown. Maybe assert_not_reached()
with some suitable message what was expected in what time and did not happen.
Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
systemd-devel mailing list
systemd-devel@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/systemd-devel
