Re: [PATCH v3 0/2] scanf: convert self-test to KUnit

[Tamir Duberstein]

On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 2:33 AM David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Thanks very much for doing this. I'm happy with these changes from a KUnit POV.
>
> Two things I think we need to be careful about:
> - This and the printf test are both changing the m68k configs. This is
> fine, but could lead to a (harmless) merge conflict, so we should make
> that clear and try to avoid having them go up in separate trees. (And,
> if one gets merged first, rebase the other.)
> - There has been some pushback on some kselftest->kunit conversions in
> the past, especially if the test is being used to debug live systems
> (which typically don't have CONFIG_KUNIT enabled). I can't personally
> imagine that as an issue with scanf (though my imagination isn't
> perfect), so I'd doubt it's a problem.
>
> I'm assuming that, as mentioned in v2, these will go in via printk,
> not ksefltest/kunit. Either would work for me (but, as mentioned
> above, I think this and the printf tests should go in via the same
> tree).
>
> This series is:
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Cheers,
> -- David

Thanks for the review David. Given the discussion on the printf series
I applied the same scrutiny to this series; I reduced the churn, and
kept the original control flow and failure messages.

I'll pick up your Reviewed-by and send v4 shortly.

Cheers.
Tamir