Attention is currently required from: Aarya, Alexander Goncharov, Anastasia Klimchuk, Nikolai Artemiev.
8 comments:
File tests/erase_func_algo.c:
To be consistent with your previous patch, and also I think tests are partially a documentation (a s […]
Done
Patch Set #9, Line 953: const size_t num_unparameterized = 1;
Do you think this is needed? It's the same name and the same function. […]
I don't understand what you're suggesting as an alternative. All of the tests need to be allocated in one block, and since this value is used in two locations (the size for memcpy below as well as generating the total number of tests) it seemed less error-prone to put the 1 in as a constant: this way you're less likely to forget to increase the allocation size if you add another unparameterized case.
Patch Set #9, Line 973: .name = "erase failure for unskipped unwritable regions",
I had the trouble with test names, because I wanted an index (a test case #) in the name. […]
The key with this test is that it expects `flashrom_flash_erase` to fail, whereas the other tests (with `SKIP_UNWRITABLE_REGIONS` enabled) require it to succeed.
This is `END_PROTECTED_REGION + 1`, just for perfection […]
Done
<= […]
Done
also here <=
I realized there was another issue with this comparison: it didn't handle the case where the block to be erased completely contains the protected region but neither endpoint is inside it. That doesn't affect the tests right now, but I added a check for that as well.
File tests/tests.h:
Patch Set #9, Line 113: void erase_unwritable_regions_skipflag_off_test_success(void **state);
this also can be removed from this patch
Done
Patch Set #9, Line 114: erase_unwritable_regions_skipflag_on_test_success
I am wondering maybe this is also not needed. Because the function which is called in tests. […]
Done
To view, visit change 82393. To unsubscribe, or for help writing mail filters, visit settings.