Re: [PATCH 2/2] kunit: tool: Mark 'kunittest_config' as constant again

[Brendan Higgins]

On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 5:45 AM <andy@surfacebook.localdomain> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 08:35:26AM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:32:52 -0700 Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:27 AM SeongJae Park <sjpark@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > From: SeongJae Park <sjpark@xxxxxxxxx>
> > > >
> > > > 'kunit_kernel.kunittest_config' was constant at first, and therefore it
> > > > used UPPER_SNAKE_CASE naming convention that usually means it is
> > > > constant in Python world.  But, commit e3212513a8f0 ("kunit: Create
> > > > default config in '--build_dir'") made it modifiable to fix a use case
> > > > of the tool and thus the naming also changed to lower_snake_case.
> > > > However, this resulted in a confusion.  As a result, some successing
> > > > changes made the tool unittest fail, and a fix[1] of it again incurred
> > > > the '--build_dir' use case failure.
> > > >
> > > > As the previous commit fixed the '--build_dir' use case without
> > > > modifying the variable again, this commit marks the variable as constant
> > > > again with UPPER_SNAKE_CASE, to reduce future confusions.
> > > >
> > > > [1] Commit d43c7fb05765 ("kunit: tool: fix improper treatment of file location")
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <sjpark@xxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Thanks :)
> >
> > >
> > > Thanks for this! This is something I meant to fix a while ago and forgot about.
> > >
> > > One minor issue, this patch does not apply on torvalds/master right
> > > now. Could you please rebase this?
> >
> > Surely of course, I will send next version soon.
>
> May I ask what happened to [1]?
> I mean it seems these two are goind to collide.
>
> Brendan?
>
> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20201015152348.65147-1-andriy.shevchenko@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/

Sorry for the confusion here. After an initial glance at your patches
(before I did the review end of last week) I thought only the first
patch from SeongJae would potentially conflict with yours (Andy's)
(hence why I hadn't reviewed it yet, I was waiting until after I
looked at yours).

I noticed on Friday that SeongJae's changes were actually fully
encompassed by Andy's, so I am taking Andy's not SongJae's. Sorry, I
was going to notify SongJae today, but you beat me to it.

Sorry everyone.