[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72=yhH7MEQWxVSVXGa5M5=HXudtS0Xja=w7ViU4Ph1Mpdw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 23:12:06 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
José Expósito <jose.exposito89@...il.com>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>,
Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>, Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>,
Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>, Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>, Matt Gilbride <mattgilbride@...gle.com>,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] rust: macros: add macro to easily run KUnit tests
On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 10:38 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
>
> but this lint doesn't make sense to me, I would say we just drop this
> lint?
I am not sure if it is intended to fire there (i.e. to resolve
constants), but seems OK since it is not something one would want
normally to write except in exceptional cases.
So we could drop it globally, but if it is just this case that we
expect, then I think it is better to just `#[expect(...)]` it (or
perhaps use a different example) and then, if we see in the future
that we have quite a few "trivial" comparisons like this, then we can
drop it globally.
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists