Re: [PATCH] kunit: take `kunit_assert` as `const`

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 4:09 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 9:44 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks for this, the code definitely should have been this way from the start.
> >
> > I had wanted to make this change but mistakenly thought the format
> > func took it via non-const for some reason.
> > I must have misread it once and got it into my head that we were
> > leaving the door open for mutable child structs (which sounds like a
> > bad idea).
>
> Thanks for reviewing it so quickly! Yeah, I was unsure too if there
> was an external reason such as some future plan to use the mutability
> as you mention or maybe some out-of-tree user was relying on it
> already.
>
> But I thought it would be best to make it stricter until it is
> actually needed (if ever); or if there is an actual user for
> mutability, it should be documented/noted in-tree.

I definitely agree here -- I can't recall any particular plan that
would require this to be non-const, and we can always change it back
if we really need to.

> It also simplifies a tiny bit a Rust-side call to
> `kunit_do_failed_assertion` that I am using within generated Rust
> documentation tests.

Very exciting! I assume that's the PR here:
https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/pull/757

Cheers,
-- David



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux