[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Y/9rJFJ9Pmzf6Waz@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2023 17:11:32 +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 06:49:29PM -0800, Yury Norov wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 28, 2023 at 12:55:05AM +0200, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > 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.
>
> If you're OK with this patch, can you give your review tag please?
I'm fine with the series,
Reviewed-by: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists