From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
Received: from mga03.intel.com (mga03.intel.com [134.134.136.65])
 by dpdk.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B217E20F
 for <dev@dpdk.org>; Tue, 10 Feb 2015 12:46:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from fmsmga003.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.29])
 by orsmga103.jf.intel.com with ESMTP; 10 Feb 2015 03:41:43 -0800
X-ExtLoop1: 1
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.09,549,1418112000"; d="scan'208";a="452533346"
Received: from bricha3-mobl3.ger.corp.intel.com ([10.243.20.46])
 by FMSMGA003.fm.intel.com with SMTP; 10 Feb 2015 03:32:05 -0800
Received: by  (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:46:38 +0025
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:46:38 +0000
From: Bruce Richardson <bruce.richardson@intel.com>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas.monjalon@6wind.com>
Message-ID: <20150210114638.GB18684@bricha3-MOBL3>
References: <1422373493-9816-1-git-send-email-danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com>
 <20150127180640.GB20118@hmsreliant.think-freely.org>
 <1692949.19G84kSIeU@xps13>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1692949.19G84kSIeU@xps13>
Organization: Intel Shannon Ltd.
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Cc: dev@dpdk.org
Subject: Re: [dpdk-dev] [PATCH v3] test: fix missing NULL pointer checks
X-BeenThere: dev@dpdk.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: patches and discussions about DPDK <dev.dpdk.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/options/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://dpdk.org/ml/archives/dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:dev@dpdk.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://dpdk.org/ml/listinfo/dev>,
 <mailto:dev-request@dpdk.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 11:46:44 -0000

On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 11:18:19AM +0100, Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> 2015-01-27 13:06, Neil Horman:
> > On Tue, Jan 27, 2015 at 04:44:53PM +0100, Daniel Mrzyglod wrote:
> > > In test_sched, we are missing NULL pointer checks after create_mempool()
> > > and rte_pktmbuf_alloc(). Add in these checks using TEST_ASSERT_NOT_NULL macros.
> > > 
> > > VERIFY macro was removed and replaced by standard test ASSERTS from "test.h" header.
> > > This provides additional information to track when the failure occured.
> > > 
> > > v3 changes:
> > > - remove VERIFY macro
> > > - fix spelling error.
> > > - change unproper comment
> > > 
> > > v2 changes:
> > > - Replace all VERIFY macros instances by proper TEST_ASSERT* macros.
> > > - fix description
> > > 
> > > v1 changes:
> > > - first iteration of patch using VERIFY macro.
> > > 
> > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Mrzyglod <danielx.t.mrzyglod@intel.com>
> >   
> > These TEST_ASSERT macros are no better than the VERIFY macro, they contain
> > exaxtly the same return issue that I outlined in my first post on the subject.
> 
> Neil, you are suggesting to rework the assert macros of the unit tests.
> It should be another patch.
> Here, Daniel is improving the sched test with existing macros.
> I think it should be applied.
>

+1
I agree with Thomas here. Having looked at the V4 patch, I believe this V3 is
better, and that other cleanup should be done in separate patches.

/Bruce