On Fri Apr 5, 2024 at 11:59 PM AEST, Andrew Jones wrote: > On Fri, Apr 05, 2024 at 07:00:32PM +1000, Nicholas Piggin wrote: > > I foolishly promised Andrew I would look into shellcheck, so here > > it is. > > Thanks! I hope you only felt foolish since it was recently April > Fool's day, though. Hah, no it was fine, it was a good idea and I've been mucking with a lot of the bash so, no worries. > > > > > https://gitlab.com/npiggin/kvm-unit-tests/-/tree/powerpc?ref_type=heads > > > > This is on top of the "v8 migration, powerpc improvements" series. For > > now the patches are a bit raw but it does get down to zero[*] shellcheck > > warnings while still passing gitlab CI. > > > > [*] Modulo the relatively few cases where they're disabled or > > suppressed. > > > > I'd like comments about what should be enabled and disabled? There are > > quite a lot of options. Lots of changes don't fix real bugs AFAIKS, so > > there's some taste involved. > > Yes, Bash is like that. We should probably eventually have a Bash style > guide as well as shellcheck and then tune shellcheck to the guide as > best we can. +1 > > > > > Could possibly be a couple of bugs, including in s390x specific. Any > > review of those to confirm or deny bug is appreciated. I haven't tried > > to create reproducers for them. > > > > I added a quick comment on each one whether it looks like a bug or > > harmless but I'm not a bash guru so could easily be wrong. I would > > possibly pull any real bug fixes to the front of the series and describe > > them as proper fix patches, and leave the other style / non-bugfixes in > > the brief format. shellcheck has a very good wiki explaining each issue > > so there is not much point in rehashing that in the changelog. > > > > One big thing kept disabled for now is the double-quoting to prevent > > globbing and splitting warning that is disabled. That touches a lot of > > code and we're very inconsistent about quoting variables today, but it's > > not completely trivial because there are quite a lot of places that does > > rely on splitting for invoking commands with arguments. That would need > > some rework to avoid sprinkling a lot of warning suppressions around. > > Possibly consistently using arrays for argument lists would be the best > > solution? > > Yes, switching to arrays and using double-quoting would be good, but we > can leave it for follow-on work after a first round of shellcheck > integration. Okay good, thanks for all the review on it. Thanks, Nick
