[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <aQEJW9hGIPbWsRhM@devvm11784.nha0.facebook.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 11:20:11 -0700
From: Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@...il.com>
To: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Cc: Simon Horman <horms@...nel.org>,
Stefano Garzarella <sgarzare@...hat.com>,
Shuah Khan <shuah@...nel.org>, virtualization@...ts.linux.dev,
netdev@...r.kernel.org, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Bobby Eshleman <bobbyeshleman@...a.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH net-next 03/12] selftests/vsock: reuse logic for
vsock_test through wrapper functions
On Mon, Oct 27, 2025 at 04:22:44PM -0700, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Oct 2025 12:08:48 -0700 Bobby Eshleman wrote:
> > > > shellcheck has some (new) things to say about this patch too.
> > > > Could you take a look over them?
> >
> > It looks like the errors are SC2317 and SC2119, but are false-positives.
> > Invoking a program as a variable (e.g., "${VSOCK_TEST}") is tripping
> > SC2317 (command unreachable), and SC2119 is due to log_{guest,host}()
> > being passed zero arguments (logging its stdin instead).
> >
> > I also see that SC2317 has many other false positives elsewhere in the
> > file (80+), reporting even lines like `rm "${QEMU_PIDFILE}"` as
> > unreachable. I wonder if we should add a patch to this series to disable
> > this check at the file-level?
>
> Yes, FWIW, don't hesitate to disable things at the file level.
> We should probably revisit which of the checks need to be disabled
> globally. But file level is also useful for manual testing.
Got it, will do!
Thanks,
Bobby
Powered by blists - more mailing lists