Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] sysctl: Add 0013 to test partially updated vectors

[Bradley Morgan]

On 17 August 2026 14:54:12 BST, Joel Granados <joel.granados@xxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>On Sat, Aug 15, 2026 at 05:05:59PM +0100, Bradley Morgan wrote:
>> The test covers the parse error, the out of range value and the
>> first value failing. That's the right coverage.
>> 
>> The shellcheck disable should say why. The test functions are only
>> called through the dispatch string, so shellcheck thinks they are
>> unreachable.
>I expect to remove this in the new sysctl selftests.
>
>> 
>> run_int_array_no_partial_update() uses spaces for its comment lines
>> while the code uses tabs.
>good catch 
>
>> 
>> reset_vals() has no case for int_0003, so sysctl_test_0013 calls it
>> for nothing. Drop the call or add a case for int_0003.
>The TARGET is reset to "". right?
>

>From what I recall! note I review loads of kernel/ files, I'll rant a
little below, some of it is related. Heh.

>I'm reluctant to do more work on the sysctl.sh file as everything will
>probably be replaced.
>
>Thx
>
>Best
>> 
>> Nits aside, the test does what it should:
>> 
>> Reviewed-by: Bradley Morgan <include@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Thanks!
>


RANT:

I've been thinking, I hate clicking on the stupid mailto links on lore
just to review a patch, I need to be CCed in most kernel/ patches anyway. 
I already am, but im mostly a "pity" CC, because I spent time reviewing 
patch, and like, I ask people all the time to CC me on most kernel/
patches they do, but that's negligible..

I have knowledge On sysctl, id love to wonder why I don't even
get_maintainers catch yet. (And if I do, I don't even get CCed! Omg..!

I really hope one day I get either reviewer or get_maintainers CCed so I
don't have to go through this headache each and every time I bloody review!


Sorry for that rant, I tend to think out loud. (Or overthink)



Thanks!