qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [PATCH] tests: Remove unused "wcount" from linux-test.c


From: Brian Cain
Subject: RE: [PATCH] tests: Remove unused "wcount" from linux-test.c
Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 13:24:41 +0000

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> Sent: Friday, May 20, 2022 8:21 AM
> To: Brian Cain <bcain@quicinc.com>
> Cc: Daniel P. Berrangé <berrange@redhat.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org;
> Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH] tests: Remove unused "wcount" from linux-test.c
> 
> WARNING: This email originated from outside of Qualcomm. Please be wary of
> any links or attachments, and do not enable macros.
> 
> On Fri, 20 May 2022 at 14:16, Brian Cain <bcain@quicinc.com> wrote:
> >
> > clang reports this variable as 'set but not used'.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Brian Cain <bcain@quicinc.com>
> > ---
> >  tests/tcg/multiarch/linux/linux-test.c | 4 +---
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 3 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/tests/tcg/multiarch/linux/linux-test.c
> b/tests/tcg/multiarch/linux/linux-test.c
> > index 019d8175ca..d5781bb476 100644
> > --- a/tests/tcg/multiarch/linux/linux-test.c
> > +++ b/tests/tcg/multiarch/linux/linux-test.c
> > @@ -332,12 +332,11 @@ static void test_pipe(void)
> >      fd_set rfds, wfds;
> >      int fds[2], fd_max, ret;
> >      uint8_t ch;
> > -    int wcount, rcount;
> > +    int rcount;
> >
> >      chk_error(pipe(fds));
> >      chk_error(fcntl(fds[0], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK));
> >      chk_error(fcntl(fds[1], F_SETFL, O_NONBLOCK));
> > -    wcount = 0;
> >      rcount = 0;
> >      for(;;) {
> >          FD_ZERO(&rfds);
> > @@ -360,7 +359,6 @@ static void test_pipe(void)
> >              if (FD_ISSET(fds[1], &wfds)) {
> >                  ch = 'a';
> >                  chk_error(write(fds[1], &ch, 1));
> > -                wcount++;
> >              }
> >          }
> >      }
> 
> Another 'count' related oddity in this test code:
> 
>                 if (rcount >= WCOUNT_MAX)
>                     break;
> why do we compare _r_count against _W_COUNT_MAX ?

I thought it was peculiar myself but *possibly* intentional.  Or maybe wcount 
should be compared with WCOUNT_MAX and rcount could be omitted?

-Brian


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]