On Fri, Jul 28, 2023 at 02:11:48PM +0530, Bharath Rupireddy wrote:
> I don't think something like [1] is complex. It makes worker_spi
> foolproof. Rather, the other approach proposed, that is to provide
> non-conflicting worker IDs to worker_spi_launch in the TAP test file,
> looks complicated to me. And it's easy for someone to come, add a test
> case with conflicting IDs input to worker_spi_launch and end up in the
> same state that we're in now.
Sure, but that's not really something that worries me for a template
such as this one, for the sake of these tests. So I'd leave things to
be as they are, slightly simpler. That's a minor point, for sure :)
--
Michael
