[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <zvu2ihivd6f4fbs7hpgowstq3li4wrdycqzso3c32qcco7zes4@s2l2solzzo6u>
Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2023 08:40:32 +0200
From: Daniel Wagner <dwagner@...e.de>
To: Shinichiro Kawasaki <shinichiro.kawasaki@....com>
Cc: Bart Van Assche <bvanassche@....org>,
"linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org" <linux-nvme@...ts.infradead.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-block@...r.kernel.org" <linux-block@...r.kernel.org>,
Chaitanya Kulkarni <kch@...dia.com>,
Hannes Reinecke <hare@...e.de>,
Sagi Grimberg <sagi@...mberg.me>,
Jason Gunthorpe <jgg@...pe.ca>
Subject: Re: [PATCH blktests v3 3/3] nvme: introduce
nvmet_target_{setup/cleanup} common code
On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 12:53:26AM +0000, Shinichiro Kawasaki wrote:
> This works, but a bit ugly. Another idea is to make one of the optional
> arguments mandatory, a positional argument. I think the option --device_type
> worth making mandatory and explicit, like,
>
> _nvmet_target_setup device
> _nvmet_target_setup file
Possible but as I said in the other mail, we have a lot more of default
arguments to functions which I would like to drop too.
> This will make it easier for me to review which test case uses which type.
> (This might be against Sagi's comment, though.)
>
> Daniel, what do you think?
I don't think it is good strategy to change blktests just to make
ShellCheck happy, when we know it is broken. It rather have SC2119
ignored until ShellCheck is fixed.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists