On Fri, Apr 06, 2018 at 10:55:59AM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 12:31:45 +1000
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:53:45PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:18:08 +1000
> > > Peter Hutterer wrote:
> > >
> > > > Slight disadvanta
On Fri, 6 Apr 2018 12:31:45 +1000
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:53:45PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:18:08 +1000
> > Peter Hutterer wrote:
> >
> > > Slight disadvantage: this breaks Ctrl+C to cancel the test suite when run
> > > from the VT. Stil
On Thu, Apr 05, 2018 at 12:53:45PM +0300, Pekka Paalanen wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:18:08 +1000
> Peter Hutterer wrote:
>
> > Slight disadvantage: this breaks Ctrl+C to cancel the test suite when run
> > from the VT. Still potentially better than injecting semi-random events.
> >
> > Signed-
On Thu, 5 Apr 2018 15:18:08 +1000
Peter Hutterer wrote:
> Slight disadvantage: this breaks Ctrl+C to cancel the test suite when run
> from the VT. Still potentially better than injecting semi-random events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer
> ---
> Pekka noticed this yesterday. This approach is
Slight disadvantage: this breaks Ctrl+C to cancel the test suite when run
from the VT. Still potentially better than injecting semi-random events.
Signed-off-by: Peter Hutterer
---
Pekka noticed this yesterday. This approach is the simplest solution,
allowing the test suite to be run as-is but bu
