linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kunit: split resource API impl from test.c into new resource.c

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAGS_qxrx-ZMUhTqkfOEGsA5O0cZW13mNmo4YV-2n7-wiUAeHkA@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Mon, 28 Mar 2022 12:40:14 -0500
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     David Gow <davidgow@...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 v2 2/2] kunit: split resource API impl from test.c into
 new resource.c

On Fri, Mar 25, 2022 at 11:27 PM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Mar 26, 2022 at 8:20 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > We've split out the declarations from include/kunit/test.h into
> > resource.h.
> > This patch splits out the definitions as well for consistency.
> >
> > A side effect of this is git blame won't properly track history by
> > default, users need to run
> > $ git blame -L ,1 -C13 lib/kunit/resource.c
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
> > ---
>
> Looks good and works fine here. I'm going to try to rebase most of the
> other resource system stuff I'm working on on top of these (which will
> likely end up moving a bunch of code _again_, but is probably the
> least terrible of all the available options).
>
> One nitpick (newline at end of file) below, otherwise this is good.

Huh, I had thought checkpatch --strict would catch this.
I guess not.

Fixing this and sending out a v3.

>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>