Hi On 13/08/2019 17:22, Dave Martin wrote: > On Fri, Aug 02, 2019 at 06:02:49PM +0100, Cristian Marussi wrote: >> Hi >> >> this patchset aims to add the initial arch-specific arm64 support to >> kselftest starting with signals-related test-cases. >> A common internal test-case layout is proposed which then it is anyway >> wired-up to the toplevel kselftest Makefile, so that it should be possible >> at the end to run it on an arm64 target in the usual way with KSFT. > > The tests look like a reasonable base overall and something that we can > extend later as needed. > > There are various minor things that need attention -- see my comments on > the individual patches. Apart for some things that can be factored out, > I don't think any of it involves redesign. > > > A few general comments: > > * Please wrap all commit messages to <= 75 chars, and follow the other > guidelines about commit messages in > Documentation/process/submitting-patches.rst). > > * Remember to run scripts/checkpatch.pl on your patches. Currently > various issues are reported: they should mostly be trivial to fix. > checkpatch does report some false positives, but most of the warnings > I see look relevant. > Thanks for the review. I addressed latest issues in V4, published now. I kept tests verbose (outputting to stderr) as of now. Removed as a whole standalone build/run. Thanks Cristian > * If you like, you can add an Author: line alongside the copyright > notice in new files that you create. (You'll see this elsewhere in > the kernel if you grep.) > > One general stylistic issue (IMHO): > > * Try to avoid inventing names for things that have no established > name (for example "magic0" to mean "magic number 0"). > > The risk is that the reader wastes time grepping for the definition, > when really the text should be read at face value. It's best to use > all caps just for #define names, abbreviations, and other things > that are customarily capitalised (like "CPU" etc.). Other words > containing underscores may resemble variable / function names, and > may cause confusion of there is no actual variable or function with > that name. > > I don't think it's worth heavily reworking the patches for this, but > it's something to bear in mind. > > [...] > > Cheers > ---Dave >
