qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv5] tests: add qtest_add_data_func_full


From: Marc-André Lureau
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv5] tests: add qtest_add_data_func_full
Date: Thu, 8 Sep 2016 09:57:07 -0400 (EDT)

Hi

----- Original Message -----
> On 09/08/2016 03:40 AM, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> > Allows one to specify a destroy function for the test data.
> > 
> > Add a fallback using glib g_test_add_vtable() internal function, whose
> > signature changed over time. Tested with glib 2.22, 2.26 and 2.48, which
> > according to git log should be enough to cover all variations.
> > 
> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <address@hidden>
> > ---
> >  tests/libqtest.c | 19 +++++++++++++++++++
> >  tests/libqtest.h | 17 +++++++++++++++++
> >  2 files changed, 36 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/tests/libqtest.c b/tests/libqtest.c
> > index eb00f13..5f4450f 100644
> > --- a/tests/libqtest.c
> > +++ b/tests/libqtest.c
> > @@ -758,6 +758,25 @@ void qtest_add_func(const char *str, void (*fn)(void))
> >      g_free(path);
> >  }
> >  
> > +void qtest_add_data_func_full(const char *str, void *data,
> > +                              void (*fn)(const void *),
> > +                              GDestroyNotify data_free_func)
> > +{
> > +    gchar *path = g_strdup_printf("/%s/%s", qtest_get_arch(), str);
> > +#if GLIB_CHECK_VERSION(2, 34, 0)
> > +    g_test_add_data_func_full(path, data, fn, data_free_func);
> > +#elif GLIB_CHECK_VERSION(2, 26, 0)
> > +    /* back-compat casts, remove this once we can require new-enough glib
> > */
> > +    g_test_add_vtable(path, 0, data, NULL,
> > +                      (GTestFixtureFunc)fn, (GTestFixtureFunc)
> > data_free_func);
> > +#elif GLIB_CHECK_VERSION(2, 22, 0)
> 
> Perhaps this could be written as #else, since we have no further
> alternatives (2.22.0 being our minimum).  Up to the maintainer if it is
> worth changing.  Otherwise I think the end result is reasonable, and you
> were able to avoid the leaks.
> 
> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>

Ack, I'll change it.

thanks



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]