On Tue, May 17, 2016 at 09:30:59AM +0200, Daniel Vetter wrote:
> On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:15:37PM +0300, Gabriel Feceoru wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10.05.2016 16:52, Jani Nikula wrote:
> > >On Tue, 10 May 2016, Gabriel Feceoru wrote:
> > >>Comparing 2 numbers with 1% accuracy depends on which one i
On Tue, May 10, 2016 at 05:15:37PM +0300, Gabriel Feceoru wrote:
>
>
> On 10.05.2016 16:52, Jani Nikula wrote:
> >On Tue, 10 May 2016, Gabriel Feceoru wrote:
> >>Comparing 2 numbers with 1% accuracy depends on which one is the
> >>reference. If count == 100 and expected == 99 this condition fail
On 10.05.2016 16:52, Jani Nikula wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2016, Gabriel Feceoru wrote:
Comparing 2 numbers with 1% accuracy depends on which one is the
reference. If count == 100 and expected == 99 this condition fails,
although it should pass.
Well, the expectation should be the reference. If
On Tue, 10 May 2016, Gabriel Feceoru wrote:
> Comparing 2 numbers with 1% accuracy depends on which one is the
> reference. If count == 100 and expected == 99 this condition fails,
> although it should pass.
Well, the expectation should be the reference. If you expect 50 at 50%
tolerance, 25..75
Comparing 2 numbers with 1% accuracy depends on which one is the
reference. If count == 100 and expected == 99 this condition fails,
although it should pass.
Signed-off-by: Gabriel Feceoru
---
tests/kms_flip.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tests/kms_flip.c
