On 03/10/15 21:32, Bill Fischofer wrote:
As Bug 1334 <https://bugs.linaro.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1334> points
out. This is bringing the validation test into conformance with our
own published guidelines. Any implementation that passes without this
fix will still pass with it, however as currently structured the
validation test will fail some implementations when it should not do
that.
We either need to fix the test or the guidelines to make them
consistent with each other.
Usually the way to go here is to have 2 patches: one is for current
development (1.1.X), which you did. And second patch is back port of
that patch to stable tree without modifying existence API (to 1.0.X). In
that case if int is returned you can fix implementation to return only 0
or 1. Of course new development patch should go first and back port
patch have to have reference to original.
Maxim.
On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 1:29 PM, Maxim Uvarov <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think we can not touch api for stable 1.0.x. And only this patch
can go to 1.0
Maxim.
On 03/10/15 20:04, Bill Fischofer wrote:
Signed-off-by: Bill Fischofer <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>
---
test/validation/odp_packet.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/test/validation/odp_packet.c
b/test/validation/odp_packet.c
index 8f764bf..0c1d069 100644
--- a/test/validation/odp_packet.c
+++ b/test/validation/odp_packet.c
@@ -425,7 +425,7 @@ do { \
odp_packet_has_##flag##_set(packet, 0); \
CU_ASSERT(odp_packet_has_##flag(packet) == 0); \
odp_packet_has_##flag##_set(packet, 1); \
- CU_ASSERT(odp_packet_has_##flag(packet) == 1); \
+ CU_ASSERT(odp_packet_has_##flag(packet) != 0); \
} while (0)
static void packet_in_flags(void)
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
_______________________________________________
lng-odp mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linaro.org/mailman/listinfo/lng-odp
