linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] kunit: add bash completion

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <aWpuYs0Mw6fR4rLO@fedora>
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2026 02:16:04 +0900
From: Ryota Sakamoto <sakamo.ryota@...il.com>
To: Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@...el.com>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>, 
	David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Rae Moar <raemoar63@...il.com>, Jonathan Corbet <corbet@....net>, 
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, 
	workflows@...r.kernel.org, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: add bash completion

Hi Jani,
Thank you for the suggestion regarding shtab.

On Fri, Jan 16, 2026 at 12:10:27PM +0200, Jani Nikula wrote:
> The alternative would be to make the tool more friendly to existing
> completion tools such as shtab [1]. Since the kernel as a project is
> really averse to adding external dependencies, you could take shtab's
> CLI approach, and commit the completion script in the repo. Only
> whoever's updating the completions would have to install and run shtab.

I understand your point about avoiding homebrew solutions, however, a main
benefit of this approach is that the completion script does not need to be
regenerated or updated manually.

Using shtab would introduce a new dependency and maintenance where the
static completion script could easily get out of sync.

So I would like to proceed with the current approach.

> And the whole thing could be taken a step further, adding, say,
> tools/completions/{bash,zsh,tcsh,...} directories for all the kernel
> tool completions instead of spreading them around.

I agree that centralizing completions is a good idea. So it would be better
handled as a separate future effort because it is a tree-wide
reorganization.

Regards,
Ryota Sakamoto