[Intel-gfx] [PATCH i-g-t 1/5] lib/tests: fix conflicting args test

[Lucas De Marchi]

On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 07:55:45AM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>On Fri, May 31, 2019 at 12:59:35PM +0300, Petri Latvala wrote:
>>On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 04:27:33PM -0700, Lucas De Marchi wrote:
>>>We want to check if the long option conflicts with one from the core.
>>>The check for conflicting short option already exists just above.
>>
>>No, this one is checking that the val (the 0) doesn't conflict.
>
>My point is that this check is already done above. We don't need to do
>it again.
>
>If you insist, then we will need to raise it to magic number 500,
>because 0 won't be a conflict after this series.

and just a reminder that I can't merge the rest without this one,
otherwise it would break igt checks.

Lucas De Marchi

>
>Lucas De Marchi
>
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Petri Latvala
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Signed-off-by: Lucas De Marchi <lucas.demarchi at intel.com>
>>>---
>>> lib/tests/igt_conflicting_args.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>
>>>diff --git a/lib/tests/igt_conflicting_args.c b/lib/tests/igt_conflicting_args.c
>>>index c357b6c5..d8be138e 100644
>>>--- a/lib/tests/igt_conflicting_args.c
>>>+++ b/lib/tests/igt_conflicting_args.c
>>>@@ -91,7 +91,7 @@ int main(int argc, char **argv)
>>> 	internal_assert_wsignaled(do_fork(), SIGABRT);
>>>
>>> 	/* conflict on long option 'val' representations */
>>>-	long_options[0] = (struct option) { "iterations", required_argument, NULL, 0};
>>>+	long_options[0] = (struct option) { "list-subtests", required_argument, NULL, 0};
>>> 	short_options = "";
>>> 	internal_assert_wsignaled(do_fork(), SIGABRT);
>>>
>>>--
>>>2.21.0
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>Intel-gfx mailing list
>>>Intel-gfx at lists.freedesktop.org
>>>https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/intel-gfx