Reland: Remove DCHECK_IMPLIES/CHECK_IMPLIES.

Reland: Remove DCHECK_IMPLIES/CHECK_IMPLIES.

This patch removes both DCHECK_IMPLIES and CHECK_IMPLIES macros.

R=thakis, sky, jam
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/acfa922fcb47dce98ee648a589db0d9cc6171256
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#356674}

[vmpstr, 2015-10-23 20:05:28]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove DCHECK_IMPLIES/CHECK_IMPLIES.

This patch removes both DCHECK_IMPLIES and CHECK_IMPLIES macros.
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel
==========

to

==========
Remove DCHECK_IMPLIES/CHECK_IMPLIES.

This patch removes both DCHECK_IMPLIES and CHECK_IMPLIES macros.

R=thakis, sky, jam
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel
==========

[vmpstr, 2015-10-23 20:05:29]

vmpstr@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ jam@chromium.org, sky@chromium.org, thakis@chromium.org

[vmpstr, 2015-10-23 20:08:33]

This is a rebase of https://codereview.chromium.org/1213193003/, I just wanted a
clean review again since rebasing would be hard 3 months after.

Removing dcheck implies due to discussion on
https://codereview.chromium.org/576073007/

[sky, 2015-10-23 21:16:58]

I looked at chrome and ui, LGTM - thanks!

[jam, 2015-10-26 17:17:40]

lgtm

[Nico, 2015-10-26 17:45:27]

lgtm, thanks! one question below:

https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/diff/20001/content/common/discarda...
File content/common/discardable_shared_memory_heap.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/diff/20001/content/common/discarda...
content/common/discardable_shared_memory_heap.cc:179: DCHECK(leftover->length_
== 1 ||
The lhs also allowed for length_ == 0. <= 1 maybe? Or is that not possible for
other reasons?

https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/diff/20001/ui/gl/gl_image_memory.cc
File ui/gl/gl_image_memory.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/diff/20001/ui/gl/gl_image_memory.c...
ui/gl/gl_image_memory.cc:261: DCHECK(!IsCompressedFormat(format) ||
(size_.width() % 4 == 0));
nit: parens on rhs not needed (also in the line below)

[vmpstr, 2015-10-26 18:10:08]

https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/diff/20001/content/common/discarda...
File content/common/discardable_shared_memory_heap.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/diff/20001/content/common/discarda...
content/common/discardable_shared_memory_heap.cc:179: DCHECK(leftover->length_
== 1 ||
On 2015/10/26 17:45:27, Nico wrote:
> The lhs also allowed for length_ == 0. <= 1 maybe? Or is that not possible for
> other reasons?

It can only be one in this case. Length is span->length_ - blocks and there's a
dcheck above: DCHECK_LT(blocks, span->length_)

https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/diff/20001/ui/gl/gl_image_memory.cc
File ui/gl/gl_image_memory.cc (right):

https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/diff/20001/ui/gl/gl_image_memory.c...
ui/gl/gl_image_memory.cc:261: DCHECK(!IsCompressedFormat(format) ||
(size_.width() % 4 == 0));
On 2015/10/26 17:45:27, Nico wrote:
> nit: parens on rhs not needed (also in the line below)

Done.

[vmpstr, 2015-10-26 18:10:16]

The CQ bit was checked by vmpstr@chromium.org

[vmpstr, 2015-10-26 18:10:16]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from thakis@chromium.org,
jam@chromium.org, sky@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/#ps40001
(title: "update+rebase")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-26 18:11:17]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1421483005/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1421483005/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-26 18:16:50]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-26 18:16:51]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  win8_chromium_ng on tryserver.chromium.win (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.win/builders/win8_chromium_ng/...)

[vmpstr, 2015-10-26 23:07:11]

The CQ bit was checked by vmpstr@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-26 23:08:47]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1421483005/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1421483005/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-27 00:17:43]

Committed patchset #3 (id:40001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-27 00:18:44]

Patchset 3 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/cc8936ba36ee29b5859f65c936e16f87eeac82b4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#356193}

[jbudorick, 2015-10-27 00:52:44]

A revert of this CL (patchset #3 id:40001) has been created in
https://codereview.chromium.org/1417903005/ by jbudorick@chromium.org.

The reason for reverting is: breaks compilation on multiple builders, including
but not limited to:

http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/WebKit%20Mac%20Builder%2...
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Android%20Builder%20%28db...
.

[jbudorick, 2015-10-27 01:06:11]

On 2015/10/27 00:52:44, jbudorick wrote:
> A revert of this CL (patchset #3 id:40001) has been created in
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1417903005/ by mailto:jbudorick@chromium.org.
> 
> The reason for reverting is: breaks compilation on multiple builders,
including
> but not limited to:
> 
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/WebKit%20Mac%20Builder%2...
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Android%20Builder%20%28db...
> .

more:

http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Linux%20Builder/builds/58765
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Linux%20Builder%20%28dbg%...
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.mac/builders/Mac%20Builder/builds/30873
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.win/builders/Win%20Builder/builds/14735
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.win/builders/Win%20x64%20Builder/builds/...
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Android%20Builder/builds/...
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.chromiumos/builders/Linux%20ChromiumOS%2...

... how did this land through the CQ?

[Nico, 2015-10-27 06:37:22]

I'm guessing another cl landing at the same time added a user of the macro
that's being removed in this cl.
On Oct 26, 2015 6:06 PM, <jbudorick@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2015/10/27 00:52:44, jbudorick wrote:
>
>> A revert of this CL (patchset #3 id:40001) has been created in
>> https://codereview.chromium.org/1417903005/ by mailto:
>> jbudorick@chromium.org.
>>
>
> The reason for reverting is: breaks compilation on multiple builders,
>>
> including
>
>> but not limited to:
>>
>
>
>
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.webkit/builders/WebKit%20Mac%20Builder%2...
>
>
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Android%20Builder%20%28db...
>
>> .
>>
>
> more:
>
>
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Linux%20Builder/builds/58765
>
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Linux%20Builder%20%28dbg%...
>
> http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.mac/builders/Mac%20Builder/builds/30873
>
> http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.win/builders/Win%20Builder/builds/14735
>
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.win/builders/Win%20x64%20Builder/builds/...
>
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.linux/builders/Android%20Builder/builds/...
>
>
http://build.chromium.org/p/chromium.chromiumos/builders/Linux%20ChromiumOS%2...
>
> ... how did this land through the CQ?
>
> https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/
>

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[vmpstr, 2015-10-27 18:14:37]

On 2015/10/27 06:37:22, Nico wrote:
> I'm guessing another cl landing at the same time added a user of the macro
> that's being removed in this cl.

It was actually two patches that added more usage:
crrev.com/3ce04b6e3 and crrev.com/2a7a25b56 

To be honest, this to me indicates that the macro is useful to some developers.
I'll rebase though.

[dcheng, 2015-10-27 20:12:00]

On 2015/10/27 at 18:14:37, vmpstr wrote:
> On 2015/10/27 06:37:22, Nico wrote:
> > I'm guessing another cl landing at the same time added a user of the macro
> > that's being removed in this cl.
> 
> It was actually two patches that added more usage:
> crrev.com/3ce04b6e3 and crrev.com/2a7a25b56 
> 
> To be honest, this to me indicates that the macro is useful to some
developers. I'll rebase though.

As one of the developers who added a new usage, I have no strong stance on
whether or not we should keep it.

However, I will say that I'm not sure that a straight conversion of
DCHECK_IMPLIES(x, y) => DCHECK(!x || y) is ideal. To be honest, if this macro
did not exist, I probably would have structured my check as:

if (x)
  DCHECK(y);

Since !x || y requires more thought (and it can get pretty hard to read with
lots of nested conditions).

[Nico, 2015-10-27 20:13:47]

On 2015/10/27 20:12:00, dcheng wrote:
> On 2015/10/27 at 18:14:37, vmpstr wrote:
> > On 2015/10/27 06:37:22, Nico wrote:
> > > I'm guessing another cl landing at the same time added a user of the macro
> > > that's being removed in this cl.
> > 
> > It was actually two patches that added more usage:
> > crrev.com/3ce04b6e3 and crrev.com/2a7a25b56 
> > 
> > To be honest, this to me indicates that the macro is useful to some
> developers. I'll rebase though.
> 
> As one of the developers who added a new usage, I have no strong stance on
> whether or not we should keep it.

I think we've reached agreement on "it should not" by now.

> However, I will say that I'm not sure that a straight conversion of
> DCHECK_IMPLIES(x, y) => DCHECK(!x || y) is ideal. To be honest, if this macro
> did not exist, I probably would have structured my check as:
> 
> if (x)
>   DCHECK(y);
> 
> Since !x || y requires more thought (and it can get pretty hard to read with
> lots of nested conditions).

I think this CL is fine as-is.

[vmpstr, 2015-10-27 20:14:51]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove DCHECK_IMPLIES/CHECK_IMPLIES.

This patch removes both DCHECK_IMPLIES and CHECK_IMPLIES macros.

R=thakis, sky, jam
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/cc8936ba36ee29b5859f65c936e16f87eeac82b4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#356193}
==========

to

==========
Remove DCHECK_IMPLIES/CHECK_IMPLIES.

This patch removes both DCHECK_IMPLIES and CHECK_IMPLIES macros.

R=thakis, sky, jam
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/cc8936ba36ee29b5859f65c936e16f87eeac82b4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#356193}
==========

[chromium-reviews, 2015-10-27 20:19:08]

On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:13 PM, <thakis@chromium.org> wrote:

> On 2015/10/27 20:12:00, dcheng wrote:
>
>> On 2015/10/27 at 18:14:37, vmpstr wrote:
>> > On 2015/10/27 06:37:22, Nico wrote:
>> > > I'm guessing another cl landing at the same time added a user of the
>> macro
>> > > that's being removed in this cl.
>> >
>> > It was actually two patches that added more usage:
>> > crrev.com/3ce04b6e3 and crrev.com/2a7a25b56
>> >
>> > To be honest, this to me indicates that the macro is useful to some
>> developers. I'll rebase though.
>>
>
> As one of the developers who added a new usage, I have no strong stance on
>> whether or not we should keep it.
>>
>
> I think we've reached agreement on "it should not" by now.


I've given up on trying to present arguments. :P


> However, I will say that I'm not sure that a straight conversion of
>> DCHECK_IMPLIES(x, y) => DCHECK(!x || y) is ideal. To be honest, if this
>> macro
>> did not exist, I probably would have structured my check as:
>>
>
> if (x)
>>    DCHECK(y);
>>
>
> Since !x || y requires more thought (and it can get pretty hard to read
>> with
>> lots of nested conditions).
>>
>
> I think this CL is fine as-is.
>

if (x)
  DCHECK(y);

Is less great cuz it leaves DCHECK-only code outside of the DCHECK. Maybe
it gets compiled away? Maybe not? There are many such places that are
written this way in the code base already, which I thought made more
argument for keeping it.

In the absence of the if-then-dcheck macro, I think !x || y is probably the
best way to write it? I'd be very interested to be convinced otherwise
tho.. cuz it is easier to read as an if statement.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[vmpstr, 2015-10-27 20:28:56]

I'm just gonna reland <_<


On 2015/10/27 20:19:08, chromium-reviews wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2015 at 1:13 PM, <mailto:thakis@chromium.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 2015/10/27 20:12:00, dcheng wrote:
> >
> >> On 2015/10/27 at 18:14:37, vmpstr wrote:
> >> > On 2015/10/27 06:37:22, Nico wrote:
> >> > > I'm guessing another cl landing at the same time added a user of the
> >> macro
> >> > > that's being removed in this cl.
> >> >
> >> > It was actually two patches that added more usage:
> >> > crrev.com/3ce04b6e3 and crrev.com/2a7a25b56
> >> >
> >> > To be honest, this to me indicates that the macro is useful to some
> >> developers. I'll rebase though.
> >>
> >
> > As one of the developers who added a new usage, I have no strong stance on
> >> whether or not we should keep it.
> >>
> >
> > I think we've reached agreement on "it should not" by now.
> 
> 
> I've given up on trying to present arguments. :P
> 
> 
> > However, I will say that I'm not sure that a straight conversion of
> >> DCHECK_IMPLIES(x, y) => DCHECK(!x || y) is ideal. To be honest, if this
> >> macro
> >> did not exist, I probably would have structured my check as:
> >>
> >
> > if (x)
> >>    DCHECK(y);
> >>
> >
> > Since !x || y requires more thought (and it can get pretty hard to read
> >> with
> >> lots of nested conditions).
> >>
> >
> > I think this CL is fine as-is.
> >
> 
> if (x)
>   DCHECK(y);
> 
> Is less great cuz it leaves DCHECK-only code outside of the DCHECK. Maybe
> it gets compiled away? Maybe not? There are many such places that are
> written this way in the code base already, which I thought made more
> argument for keeping it.
> 
> In the absence of the if-then-dcheck macro, I think !x || y is probably the
> best way to write it? I'd be very interested to be convinced otherwise
> tho.. cuz it is easier to read as an if statement.
> 
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
email
> to mailto:chromium-reviews+unsubscribe@chromium.org.

[vmpstr, 2015-10-27 20:29:21]

Description was changed from

==========
Remove DCHECK_IMPLIES/CHECK_IMPLIES.

This patch removes both DCHECK_IMPLIES and CHECK_IMPLIES macros.

R=thakis, sky, jam
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel

Committed: https://crrev.com/cc8936ba36ee29b5859f65c936e16f87eeac82b4
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#356193}
==========

to

==========
Reland: Remove DCHECK_IMPLIES/CHECK_IMPLIES.

This patch removes both DCHECK_IMPLIES and CHECK_IMPLIES macros.

R=thakis, sky, jam
CQ_INCLUDE_TRYBOTS=tryserver.blink:linux_blink_rel
==========

[vmpstr, 2015-10-27 20:29:35]

The CQ bit was checked by vmpstr@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-27 20:31:00]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1421483005/40001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1421483005/40001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-27 20:45:28]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-27 20:45:29]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  android_compile_dbg on tryserver.chromium.linux (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.chromium.linux/builders/android_compile...)

[danakj, 2015-10-27 20:59:57]

danakj@chromium.org changed reviewers:
+ danakj@chromium.org

[danakj, 2015-10-27 20:59:58]

Heh, it might be hard to remove. Patches are landing with the macro multiple
times a day lately. This is the last 3 months:

% git log origin/master -G CHECK_IMPLIES --format="%h %ai %ae"
2a7a25b 2015-10-27 09:20:49 -0700 clamy@chromium.org
625f6c8 2015-10-26 17:54:50 -0700 jbudorick@chromium.org
cc8936b 2015-10-26 17:17:34 -0700 vmpstr@chromium.org
3ce04b6 2015-10-26 16:30:55 -0700 dcheng@chromium.org
4967831 2015-10-22 14:59:00 -0700 clamy@chromium.org
aa9e9d9 2015-10-22 09:43:06 -0700 reveman@chromium.org
2b0354f 2015-10-21 15:39:27 -0700 ccameron@chromium.org
2f2f51e 2015-10-21 11:41:56 -0700 danakj@chromium.org
de5abdb 2015-10-20 12:16:34 -0700 skobes@chromium.org
c3342b0 2015-10-20 01:50:36 -0700 vasilii@chromium.org
779bd95 2015-10-19 21:03:58 -0700 reveman@chromium.org
44429f2 2015-10-19 16:38:48 -0700 reveman@chromium.org
ac2696e 2015-10-19 14:36:52 -0700 reveman@chromium.org
1071919 2015-10-14 14:53:06 -0700 vmpstr@chromium.org
4f295c4 2015-10-08 20:13:49 -0700 boliu@chromium.org
268c09f 2015-10-08 13:23:46 -0700 ccameron@chromium.org
69788e1 2015-10-06 08:30:08 -0700 fdegans@chromium.org
148fedf 2015-10-01 17:12:04 -0700 sievers@chromium.org
59f9694 2015-10-01 13:51:18 -0700 csharrison@chromium.org
a3f3a94 2015-09-28 14:15:39 -0700 tdresser@chromium.org
2e140f5 2015-09-28 09:10:07 -0700 dglazkov@chromium.org
b876f0a 2015-09-24 13:01:05 -0700 clamy@chromium.org
8567402 2015-09-23 17:25:25 -0700 vmpstr@chromium.org
9fa62d5 2015-09-21 15:05:29 -0700 csharrison@chromium.org
d94b2b08 2015-09-17 21:03:40 -0700 posciak@chromium.org
27c68f5 2015-09-17 10:37:09 -0700 tommycli@chromium.org
e3cc0a6 2015-09-16 18:39:53 -0700 posciak@chromium.org
e9f830c 2015-09-09 14:36:16 -0700 danakj@chromium.org
c2dd691 2015-08-27 10:25:53 -0700 reveman@chromium.org

[Nico, 2015-10-27 21:02:40]

On 2015/10/27 20:59:58, danakj wrote:
> Heh, it might be hard to remove. Patches are landing with the macro multiple
> times a day lately. This is the last 3 months:
> 
> % git log origin/master -G CHECK_IMPLIES --format="%h %ai %ae"
> 2a7a25b 2015-10-27 09:20:49 -0700 mailto:clamy@chromium.org
> 625f6c8 2015-10-26 17:54:50 -0700 mailto:jbudorick@chromium.org
> cc8936b 2015-10-26 17:17:34 -0700 mailto:vmpstr@chromium.org
> 3ce04b6 2015-10-26 16:30:55 -0700 mailto:dcheng@chromium.org
> 4967831 2015-10-22 14:59:00 -0700 mailto:clamy@chromium.org
> aa9e9d9 2015-10-22 09:43:06 -0700 mailto:reveman@chromium.org
> 2b0354f 2015-10-21 15:39:27 -0700 mailto:ccameron@chromium.org
> 2f2f51e 2015-10-21 11:41:56 -0700 mailto:danakj@chromium.org
> de5abdb 2015-10-20 12:16:34 -0700 mailto:skobes@chromium.org
> c3342b0 2015-10-20 01:50:36 -0700 mailto:vasilii@chromium.org
> 779bd95 2015-10-19 21:03:58 -0700 mailto:reveman@chromium.org
> 44429f2 2015-10-19 16:38:48 -0700 mailto:reveman@chromium.org
> ac2696e 2015-10-19 14:36:52 -0700 mailto:reveman@chromium.org
> 1071919 2015-10-14 14:53:06 -0700 mailto:vmpstr@chromium.org
> 4f295c4 2015-10-08 20:13:49 -0700 mailto:boliu@chromium.org
> 268c09f 2015-10-08 13:23:46 -0700 mailto:ccameron@chromium.org
> 69788e1 2015-10-06 08:30:08 -0700 mailto:fdegans@chromium.org
> 148fedf 2015-10-01 17:12:04 -0700 mailto:sievers@chromium.org
> 59f9694 2015-10-01 13:51:18 -0700 mailto:csharrison@chromium.org
> a3f3a94 2015-09-28 14:15:39 -0700 mailto:tdresser@chromium.org
> 2e140f5 2015-09-28 09:10:07 -0700 mailto:dglazkov@chromium.org
> b876f0a 2015-09-24 13:01:05 -0700 mailto:clamy@chromium.org
> 8567402 2015-09-23 17:25:25 -0700 mailto:vmpstr@chromium.org
> 9fa62d5 2015-09-21 15:05:29 -0700 mailto:csharrison@chromium.org
> d94b2b08 2015-09-17 21:03:40 -0700 mailto:posciak@chromium.org
> 27c68f5 2015-09-17 10:37:09 -0700 mailto:tommycli@chromium.org
> e3cc0a6 2015-09-16 18:39:53 -0700 mailto:posciak@chromium.org
> e9f830c 2015-09-09 14:36:16 -0700 mailto:danakj@chromium.org
> c2dd691 2015-08-27 10:25:53 -0700 mailto:reveman@chromium.org

Much of that is probably copypasta. Suggested strategy: Land this CL without the
change that actual removes the macro, which will reduce the rate at which new
uses are added, and then remove the new uses from within the last day and the
macro itself in a new CL.

[vmpstr, 2015-10-28 18:28:52]

The CQ bit was checked by vmpstr@chromium.org

[vmpstr, 2015-10-28 18:28:53]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from thakis@chromium.org,
jam@chromium.org, sky@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/#ps80001
(title: " ")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-28 18:29:16]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1421483005/80001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1421483005/80001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-28 18:49:22]

The CQ bit was unchecked by commit-bot@chromium.org

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-28 18:49:23]

Try jobs failed on following builders:
  linux_blink_rel on tryserver.blink (JOB_FAILED,
http://build.chromium.org/p/tryserver.blink/builders/linux_blink_rel/builds/7...)

[vmpstr, 2015-10-28 20:58:35]

The CQ bit was checked by vmpstr@chromium.org

[vmpstr, 2015-10-28 20:58:35]

The patchset sent to the CQ was uploaded after l-g-t-m from thakis@chromium.org,
jam@chromium.org, sky@chromium.org
Link to the patchset: https://codereview.chromium.org/1421483005/#ps100001
(title: " ")

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-28 20:59:36]

CQ is trying da patch. Follow status at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-status/1421483005/100001
View timeline at
 https://chromium-cq-status.appspot.com/patch-timeline/1421483005/100001

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-28 22:42:32]

Committed patchset #6 (id:100001)

[commit-bot: I haz the power, 2015-10-28 22:43:19]

Patchset 6 (id:??) landed as
https://crrev.com/acfa922fcb47dce98ee648a589db0d9cc6171256
Cr-Commit-Position: refs/heads/master@{#356674}