linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 5/6] rust: support running Rust documentation tests as KUnit ones

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]

Date:   Thu, 15 Jun 2023 10:50:46 -0300
From:   Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@...il.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>, David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
        Wedson Almeida Filho <wedsonaf@...il.com>,
        Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
        Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
        Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
        Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
        Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
        Andreas Hindborg <nmi@...aspace.dk>,
        Philip Li <philip.li@...el.com>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, patches@...ts.linux.dev
Subject: Re: [PATCH 5/6] rust: support running Rust documentation tests as
 KUnit ones

On 6/15/23 06:23, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 15, 2023 at 5:52 AM Martin Rodriguez Reboredo
> <yakoyoku@...il.com> wrote:
>>
>> I can't remember that if this panic it will mention the path on it.
>> Though if it does, then use something more explicit than
>> `.unwrap()`.
> 
> It doesn't print it, and I am happy to make things more explicit, but
> in which case(s) do you see it failing?
> 
>> Please do not use unwrap here, one can easily create a path that
>> it's not compliant under `rust/test/doctests/kernel` and get no
>> clue about where this script has failed. Use `.expect()` or
>> something else instead.
> 
> The folder is removed every time, so that should not happen I think.
> Yes, you can still hack things and call the script manually, but I
> wouldn't call that "easily".

Ah, you are right, I've forgot that the folder was deleted and
remade, and because of that an error is more likely to occur at that
stage and not while `scripts/rustdoc_test_{builder,gen}.rs` is
running. Thus.

Reviewed-by: Martin Rodriguez Reboredo <yakoyoku@...il.com>

> 
> Nevertheless, I am happy to change it if we think there is a risk,
> e.g. `rustdoc` changing the pattern (though we pin the version so
> far).
> 
> Thanks for taking a look Martin!
> 
> Cheers,
> Miguel