Peter Maydell <[email protected]> writes:
> For us, assertions are always enabled, but side-effect expressions > inside the argument to g_assert() are bad style anyway. Fix three > occurrences in IPMI related tests, which will silence some Coverity > nits. > > Fixes: CID 1432322, CID 1432287, CID 1432291 > Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <[email protected]> > --- > tests/qtest/ipmi-bt-test.c | 6 ++++-- > tests/qtest/ipmi-kcs-test.c | 3 ++- > 2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tests/qtest/ipmi-bt-test.c b/tests/qtest/ipmi-bt-test.c > index a42207d416f..8492f02a9c3 100644 > --- a/tests/qtest/ipmi-bt-test.c > +++ b/tests/qtest/ipmi-bt-test.c > @@ -98,7 +98,8 @@ static void bt_wait_b_busy(void) > { > unsigned int count = 1000; > while (IPMI_BT_CTLREG_GET_B_BUSY() != 0) { > - g_assert(--count != 0); > + --count; > + g_assert(count != 0); This does seem a little weird - we are not asserting an interface violation just that the read should have cleared in 1000 * 100 usec. If it doesn't is that really a theoretically impossible situation or just an example of a failed test. That said looking at how deeply buried in the test these helpers are an assert is probably better than a convoluted attempt to return out and exit the test with a failure. Reviewed-by: Alex Bennée <[email protected]> > usleep(100); > } > } > @@ -107,7 +108,8 @@ static void bt_wait_b2h_atn(void) > { > unsigned int count = 1000; > while (IPMI_BT_CTLREG_GET_B2H_ATN() == 0) { > - g_assert(--count != 0); > + --count; > + g_assert(count != 0); > usleep(100); > } > } > diff --git a/tests/qtest/ipmi-kcs-test.c b/tests/qtest/ipmi-kcs-test.c > index fc0a918c8d1..afc24dd3e46 100644 > --- a/tests/qtest/ipmi-kcs-test.c > +++ b/tests/qtest/ipmi-kcs-test.c > @@ -73,7 +73,8 @@ static void kcs_wait_ibf(void) > { > unsigned int count = 1000; > while (IPMI_KCS_CMDREG_GET_IBF() != 0) { > - g_assert(--count != 0); > + --count; > + g_assert(count != 0); > } > } -- Alex Bennée
