On Thursday, 2 August 2018 12:28:45 CEST Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 10:17:32AM +0200, Bjoern Walk wrote: > > Pino Toscano <ptoscano redhat com> [2018-08-02, 10:02AM +0200]: > > > I do not think this patch is correct: we are dealing with random bytes, > > > so there is no "endianness" for them. > > > > Well, it's not incorrect either, isn't it? I agree that endianness > > doesn't matter for random data, but in the same time, it doesn't hurt to > > have the same random data generated on big- and little-endian machines. Not sure I understand -- since it's random data, you cannot have it "the same", no matter which endianness the machine has. > > And it gives an easy and future-proof fix for the mocked tests. IMHO every mocked test has its own behaviour, and thus the mocking needs to reflect that. > Lets just modijfy tests/virrandommock.c to add mocking of virRandomBits > alongside virRandomBytes. I don't see how it will help, since all virRandomBits does is calling virRandomBytes. I still did not see any complaints about my patch to fix viriscsitest (since the problem is specific for it), what about ACKing it then? -- Pino Toscano
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.