ACK: [PATCH 21/21] FADT: remove no longer useful variables from test1

[Al Stone]

On 02/12/2016 03:09 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 09/02/16 23:30, Al Stone wrote:
>> On 02/09/2016 05:34 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
>>> On 09/02/16 01:33, Al Stone wrote:
>>>> Now that the tests have been resequenced, added to, and generally
>>>> overhauled, clean up some variables in test1 that are no longer
>>>> useful.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Al Stone <al.stone at linaro.org>
>>>> ---
>>>>  src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c | 4 ----
>>>>  1 file changed, 4 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c
>>>> index 05205cb..fbc71fd 100644
>>>> --- a/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c
>>>> +++ b/src/acpi/fadt/fadt.c
>>>> @@ -1514,8 +1514,6 @@ static void acpi_table_check_fadt_sleep_status_reg(fwts_framework *fw)
>>>>  
>>>>  static int fadt_test1(fwts_framework *fw)
>>>>  {
>>>> -	bool passed = true;
>>>> -
>>>>  	acpi_table_check_fadt_firmware_ctrl(fw);
>>>>  	acpi_table_check_fadt_dsdt(fw);
>>>>  	acpi_table_check_fadt_reserved(fw);
>>>> @@ -1589,8 +1587,6 @@ static int fadt_test1(fwts_framework *fw)
>>>>  	 */
>>>>  	fwts_log_info(fw, "FADT Hypervisor Vendor Identity is %" PRIu64,
>>>>  		      fadt->hypervisor_id);
>>>> -	if (passed)
>>>> -		fwts_passed(fw, "No issues found in FADT table.");
>>>>  
>>>>  	return FWTS_OK;
>>>>  }
>>>>
>>> Acked-by: Colin Ian King <colin.king at canonical.com>
>>>
>>> Thanks Al for all these improvements.  Are there any fwts-test patches
>>> to come later?
>>>
>>> Colin
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for all the review.  This turned out a lot bigger than I thought
>> it might so I appreciate the patience involved.
>>
>> I did run make check but I did not get any regression test failures that
>> I had not already seen and reported or fixed (there's a previous series
>> called "Update several regression tests" that still needs to be ACKd and
>> pulled in, btw).  I'll double check that, of course, and send anything
>> I find along.
>>
>> Or, were you expecting new sections in fwts-test?  I hadn't really thought
>> that about it, if that's what's being asked....is there a rule of thumb
>> the project follows that applies here?
>>
> No worries about extra tests for now. Let's see how this patch set
> shakes down on a range of firmware over the next few release cycles.
> 
> Colin
> 

Okey dokey.  Shall I send a v2 of this set or are we copacetic?

-- 
ciao,
al
-----------------------------------
Al Stone
Software Engineer
Linaro Enterprise Group
al.stone at linaro.org
-----------------------------------