On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 05:33:42PM -0800, Andrii Nakryiko wrote:
>
> > __naked void invalid_and_of_negative_number(void)
> >
> > {
> > asm volatile (
> > " r1 = 0; \n\
>
> Kumar recently landed similarly formatted inline asm-based test, let's
> make sure we stick to common style. \n at the end are pretty
> distracting, IMO (though helpful to debug syntax errors in asm, of
> course). I'd also move starting " into the same line as asm volatile:
+1. Pls drop \n.
You don't have \n anyway in migrator's README on github.
> asm volatile (" \
>
> this will make adding/removing asm lines at the beginning simpler (and
> you already put closing quote on separate line, so that side is taken
> care of)
+1
Also pls indent the asm code with two tabs the way Kumar did.
I think it looks cleaner this way and single tab labels align
with 'asm volatile ('.
> > All in all the current script stats are as follows:
> > - 62 out of 93 files from progs/*.c can be converted w/o warnings;
out of 98 in verifier/*.c ?
> > - 55 converted files could be compiled;
> > - 40 pass testing, 15 fail.
I would land this 40 now and continue step by step.
> >
> > By submitting this RFC I seek the following feedback:
> > - is community interested in such migration?
>
> +1
>
> This is a great work!
+1
> > - if yes, should I pursue partial or complete tests migration?
>
> I'd start with partial
>
> > - in case of partial migration which tests should be prioritized?
>
> those that work out of the box?
>
> > - should I offer migrated tests one by one or in big butches?
Can you do one patch one file in verifier/*.c that would map
to one new file in progs/ ?
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/eddyz87/verifier-tests-migrator
Having this link in patch series is enough.
The 'migrator' itself doesn't need to be in the kernel tree.
