On 6/30/22 1:26 PM, Eli Schwartz wrote: > On 6/30/22 11:18 AM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >> On 6/30/22 15:31, Ammar Faizi wrote: >>> On 6/30/22 9:19 PM, Pavel Begunkov wrote: >>>> Nobody cared enough to "fix" all tests to use those new codes, most >>>> of the cases just return what they've got, but whatever. Same with >>>> stdout vs stderr. >>> >>> That error code rule was invented since commit: >>> >>> 68103b731c34a9f83c181cb33eb424f46f3dcb94 ("Merge branch >>> 'exitcode-protocol' of ....") >>> >>> Ref: https://github.com/axboe/liburing/pull/621/files >>> >>> Thanks to Eli who did it. Eli also fixed all tests. Maybe some are still >>> missing, but if we find it, better to fix it. >> >> Have no idea what you're talking about but I'm having >> hard time calling 6 returns out of 21 in this file "all". > > > Hi, I should probably clarify the state of affairs... > > I submitted a patch series on github 4 days ago which implements those > new codes. It was merged 2 days ago. This is very new code, so I think > it's not completely 100% fair to say that no one "cared" enough to use it. > > As far as the actual changes and their completion go... take a look at > the commit messages in the merged patches, specifically take a look at > commit ed430fbeb33367324a039d9cee0fd504bb91e11a. > > """ > tests: migrate some tests to use enum-based exit codes > > [...] > > A partial migration of existing pass/fail values in test sources is > included. > """ > > You can also take a look at Github's equivalent of a cover letter, in > which I mentioned that I haven't ported everything, but what I did do is > still useful because "a) it has to start somewhere, b) it demonstrates > the basic idea of how to structure things." > > As far as I'm concerned, I believe the patch series stands on its own > merit. I established the framework to use, and that on its own is useful > and deserves merging, because it means that people can start using it, > and getting things correct from the beginning when adding new code. > > Old code does need to be carefully checked, it's not a simple > find/replace, but that can be done incrementally, and I'm willing to > continue work on that myself. I just don't think it has to be all or > nothing at the time of merging. > > > ... > > Also, for the record -- while waiting for the Github patch series to be > merged, I did continue to convert more code via git commit --fixup= && > git rebase -i --autosquash. If it had taken longer to end up being > merged, I would have ended up converting more tests over, and that would > have reflected on the current state of git master. > > I'm not sad that it got merged when it was, because again, this work can > be done incrementally and people can take advantage of existing work > immediately. Jens decided it was ready to merge, and that seems like a > fine decision to me. If he had asked me to finish porting all the tests > first, I could have done that too. And that was why I merged it, too. I think it's a step in the right direction, and as long as you keep converting tests so we end up in a cohesive state, then that's all good. I just did a liburing release and it'll be at least few months before the next one, now is a good time to shake up things like this. Thanks for your work so far, looking forward to the next batch! -- Jens Axboe