On Thu, Aug 02, 2018 at 06:40:56PM +0200, Andrea Bolognani wrote:
If all we achieve is reducing the depth by one for a single test case, the additional complexity (not to mention breaking the principle of least surprise) is not worth it: let's use simpler, more predictable code instead. This basically reverts fec6e4c48c9c (with a few adjustments).
Yeah, it doesn't make sense. I recall there was yet another reason for that and it should've been used later on in a test that was never written (and me being the only one interested in making that test didn't help). So: Reviewed-by: Martin Kletzander <mkletzan redhat com>
Description: Digital signature