Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com> wrote:
> When running migration tests we monitor for a STOP event so we can skip
> redundant waits. This will be needed for the RESUME event too shortly.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel P. Berrangé <berra...@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Juan Quintela <quint...@redhat.com>
i.e. it is better that what we have now.
But
> diff --git a/tests/qtest/migration-helpers.c b/tests/qtest/migration-helpers.c
> index f6f3c6680f..61396335cc 100644
> --- a/tests/qtest/migration-helpers.c
> +++ b/tests/qtest/migration-helpers.c
> @@ -24,14 +24,20 @@
> #define MIGRATION_STATUS_WAIT_TIMEOUT 120
>
> bool got_stop;
> +bool got_resume;
>
> -static void check_stop_event(QTestState *who)
> +static void check_events(QTestState *who)
> {
> QDict *event = qtest_qmp_event_ref(who, "STOP");
> if (event) {
> got_stop = true;
> qobject_unref(event);
> }
> + event = qtest_qmp_event_ref(who, "RESUME");
> + if (event) {
> + got_resume = true;
> + qobject_unref(event);
> + }
> }
What happens if we receive the events in the order RESUME/STOP (I mean
in the big scheme of things, not that it makes sense in this particular
case).
QDict *qtest_qmp_event_ref(QTestState *s, const char *event)
{
while (s->pending_events) {
GList *first = s->pending_events;
QDict *response = (QDict *)first->data;
s->pending_events = g_list_delete_link(s->pending_events, first);
if (!strcmp(qdict_get_str(response, "event"), event)) {
return response;
}
qobject_unref(response);
}
return NULL;
}
if we don't found the event that we are searching for, we just drop it.
Does this makes sense if we are searching only for more than one event?
Later, Juan.
