Am 22.09.2026 um 15:44 hat Alberto Garcia geschrieben: > On Tue 22 Sep 2026 03:03:56 PM +02, Kevin Wolf wrote: > > Am 21.09.2026 um 22:42 hat Stefan Hajnoczi geschrieben: > >> On Wed, Sep 16, 2026 at 10:21:22AM +0200, Hanna Czenczek wrote: > > What's even stranger is that both things were introduced in the same > > commit. But it seems clearly related to 136 because the change was made > > right before the test was added. > > > > Berto, do you remember why you didn't rely just on clock_step? > > No, sorry, I don't remember :-/ I guess I wasn't familiar with that > function? 136 was one of the first tests that I wrote.
I thought so at first, too, but then I saw that other places in the same test do use it. Anyway, thanks for the quick reply. Then let's just try out what breaks if we change it. :-) Kevin
