This is complete garbage, Andrew.
In this patch, you change the name in the Makefile:
On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 8:43 PM Andrew Morton <akpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> From: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: lib/list_kunit: follow new file name convention for KUnit tests
>
> Follow new file name convention for the KUnit tests. Since we have
> lib/*test*.c in a few variations, use 'kunit' suffix to distinguish usual
> test cases with KUnit-based ones.
...
> --- a/lib/Makefile~lib-list_kunit-follow-new-file-name-convention-for-kunit-tests
> +++ a/lib/Makefile
> @@ -350,6 +350,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_PLDMFW) += pldmfw/
>
> # KUnit tests
> obj-$(CONFIG_BITFIELD_KUNIT) += bitfield_kunit.o
> -obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list-test.o
> +obj-$(CONFIG_LIST_KUNIT_TEST) += list_kunit.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_LINEAR_RANGES_TEST) += test_linear_ranges.o
> obj-$(CONFIG_BITS_TEST) += test_bits.o
but the actual *file* isn't changed.
So there is no way in hell this will build.
The file is _actually_ renamed in patch [20/95], which claims to do
the lib/bits_kunit stuff, but actually does both the bits _and_ the
list_kunit stuff.
Making things worse, your use of substandard tools means that this
garbage shows up as a patch that is over sixteen *hundred* lines long,
when proper tooling would hav eactually shown it as a rename.
It _should_ have been about 10 lines total. Not 1600 lines that hide
the problem and make it really nasty to see.
That 1600 lines of noise is ignoring patch [19/95], which does the
"linear_ranges_kunit" renaming, adding another ~500 lines of illegible
garbage to my mailbox.
At least that one got the Makefile right, although it was really hard
to actually see that, considering how nasty and illegible the patch
was due to renaming.
Basically, I'm going to throw all these rename patches away. Not only
were they were completely buggy, but they were also illegible because
of your inferior tools.
Don't send me any more rename patches until your tools can actually do renames.
Linus
