[SCM] Samba Shared Repository - branch master updated

Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer mdw at samba.org
Mon Nov 29 11:20:27 MST 2010


Hi Jelmer,

I don't see me very guilty since I've simply performed the cleanup as 
the Solaris "cc" suggests.
I see more a problem in the way how these tests were written - since 
obviously there wasn't enough care to proof for the termination 
conditions - which should always be taken into account.
Therefore I think it doesn't make much sense to revert my commit - since 
functionally it doesn't change anything - they are wrong with and 
without my commit.
Much better would be to immediately introduce the termination conditions.

Cheers,
Matthias

Jelmer Vernooij wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 15:35 +0100, Matthias Dieter Wallnöfer wrote:
>    
>> diff --git a/source4/torture/basic/base.c b/source4/torture/basic/base.c
>> index d5090e9..9953573 100644
>> --- a/source4/torture/basic/base.c
>> +++ b/source4/torture/basic/base.c
>> @@ -1360,8 +1360,6 @@ static bool run_iometer(struct torture_context *tctx,
>>   				       smbcli_errstr(cli->tree)));
>>   		}
>>   	}
>> -
>> -	return true;
>>   }
>>      
> This is wrong; this function should return a bool and it should always
> return true in case of success. Please revert it.
>
>    
>>   /**
>> diff --git a/source4/torture/basic/misc.c b/source4/torture/basic/misc.c
>> index 7223272..c590237 100644
>> --- a/source4/torture/basic/misc.c
>> +++ b/source4/torture/basic/misc.c
>> @@ -289,8 +289,6 @@ bool torture_holdopen(struct torture_context *tctx,
>>   		fflush(stdout);
>>   		sleep(15);
>>   	}
>> -
>> -	return true;
>>   }
>>      
> Same here.
>
>    
>>   /*
>> diff --git a/source4/torture/raw/pingpong.c b/source4/torture/raw/pingpong.c
>> index 124cf69..f9c551e 100644
>> --- a/source4/torture/raw/pingpong.c
>> +++ b/source4/torture/raw/pingpong.c
>> @@ -243,8 +243,5 @@ bool torture_ping_pong(struct torture_context *torture)
>>   		}
>>   		loops++;
>>   	}
>> -
>> -	talloc_free(mem_ctx);
>> -	return true;
>>   }
>>      
> Same here.
>
> FWIW I've only checked these three fragments since they're in code I'm
> familiar with. I haven't checked the other ones.
>
> Can you, per tridge's recent request, please send your patches for
> review before checking them in?
>
> Cheers,
>
> Jelmer
>    



More information about the samba-technical mailing list