On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 6:19 PM Alexei Starovoitov <alexei.starovoitov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Sat, Mar 25, 2023 at 9:16 AM Stanislav Fomichev <sdf@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > It was my understanding from the RFC feedback that this "lighter" way > > > is preferable and we already have some tests written like that. > > > Don't have a strong opinion on this topic. > > > > Ack, I'm obviously losing a bunch of context here :-( > > I like coalescing better, but if the original suggestion was to use > > this lighter way, I'll keep that in mind while reviewing. > > I still prefer the clean look of the tests, so I've applied this set. > > But I'm not going to insist that this is the only style developers > should use moving forward. > Whoever prefers "" style can use it in the future tests. Great, because I found out in practice that inability to add comments to the manually written asm code is a pretty big limitation. I do like the lightweight feel of this unquoted style as well, but practically we'll probably have to live with both styles. > I find them harder to read, but oh well. > > Ed, > the only small nit I've noticed is that the tests are compiled > for both test_progs and test_progs-no_alu32 though they're in asm. > So we're wasting a bit of CI time running them in both flavors. > Not a big deal and maybe not worth fixing, since they're pretty fast.
