[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y/00yaVqK2x3+pP3@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2023 00:55:05 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Yury Norov <yury.norov@...il.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Alexander Gordeev <agordeev@...ux.ibm.com>,
Alexander Lobakin <aleksander.lobakin@...el.com>,
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@...ux.ibm.com>,
Claudio Imbrenda <imbrenda@...ux.ibm.com>,
David Hildenbrand <david@...hat.com>,
Guenter Roeck <linux@...ck-us.net>,
Heiko Carstens <hca@...ux.ibm.com>,
Janosch Frank <frankja@...ux.ibm.com>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Sven Schnelle <svens@...ux.ibm.com>,
Vasily Gorbik <gor@...ux.ibm.com>, linux-s390@...r.kernel.org,
kvm@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] lib/test_bitmap: increment failure counter properly
On Mon, Feb 27, 2023 at 01:45:23PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> The tests that don't use expect_eq() macro to determine that a test is
> failured must increment failed_tests explicitly.
...
> pr_err("bitmap_copy_arr32(nbits == %d:"
> " tail is not safely cleared: %d\n",
Usually we don't split string literals (since checkpatch doesn't complain on a
looong lines with them at the end of the line),
...
> pr_err("bitmap_copy_arr64(nbits == %d:"
> " tail is not safely cleared: %d\n", nbits, next_bit);
Ditto.
P.S. Seems a material for another patch.
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists