Jeff King <peff@xxxxxxxx> writes: > I think it's worth doing. The reason t0000 passes is because it was my > reference script when adding UNLEAK() back in: > > https://lore.kernel.org/git/20170905130149.agc3zp3s6i6e5aki@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/ > > (which might be of historical interest if you haven't read it). I knew > that the next step would be tediously going through the test suite > looking at the tool results, and I somehow stalled on that part. ;) > ... > I haven't looked at the individual patches yet. I'll respond to them > individually. Thanks for working on this, and reviewing the result. I agree with Peff's review comments and will look forward to seeing a new iteration that updates the issues pointed out, which range from coding styles to constness---IIUC, none of them were rocket science to correct.
