[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Z6tzkY375ffTVEXQ@smile.fi.intel.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:58:09 +0200
From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com>
To: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@...il.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>,
Rasmus Villemoes <linux@...musvillemoes.dk>,
Sergey Senozhatsky <senozhatsky@...omium.org>,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>,
Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v7 1/3] scanf: remove redundant debug logs
On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:50:33AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:42 AM Andy Shevchenko
> <andriy.shevchenko@...ux.intel.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 11, 2025 at 10:13:37AM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > > The test already prints the same information on failure; remove
> > > redundant pr_debug() logs.
...
> > > - pr_debug("\"%s\", \"%s\" ->\n", str, fmt); \
> >
> > What *if* the n_args == 0 here?
>
> Then there's no assertion in this block, so the test cannot possibly fail here.
Correct, but I'm talking about this in a scope of the removed debug print.
I.o.w. how would we even know that this was the case?
(I'm not objecting removal, what I want from you is to have a descriptive and
explanatory commit message that's answers to "why is this needed?" and "why is
it safe to do?")
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
Powered by blists - more mailing lists