linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 1/5] kunit: tool: drop mostly unused KunitResult.result field

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CABVgOSnmfhPcMCy5yQEymyBnTWSqEFbmTnSbHYL7D1D=eJOk5A@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Thu, 27 Jan 2022 10:20:32 +0800
From:   David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc:     Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@...glegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] kunit: tool: drop mostly unused KunitResult.result field

On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 3:55 AM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development
<kunit-dev@...glegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 20, 2022 at 9:19 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
> > > That being said, I can live with the current solution, but'd ideally
> > > like a comment or something to make the return value Tuple a bit more
> > > obvious.
> >
> > A comment to explain that Tuple == multiple return values from a func?
> > Or something else?
>
> Friendly ping.
> Do we want a comment like this?
>
> # Note: Python uses tuples internally for multiple return values
> def foo() -> Tuple[int, int]
>    return 0, 1
>

Whoops -- forgot to send my response to this.

I was less worried about explaining the concept of multiple return
values, and more about naming what the return values were: that the
first one is the result information, and the second is the parsed
test.

That being said, it's reasonably obvious from the types in this case,
so I'm okay leaving this as-is, though in general I'm wary of tuples
when the order doesn't matter, and a struct-style thing (with named
members) fits that better.

I'm no Python expert though, so don't let my whinging get too much in the way.

-- David