Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] test_hash.c: split test_hash_init

From: Marco Elver <elver@google.com>
To: Isabella B do Amaral <isabellabdoamaral@usp.br>
Cc: "Geert Uytterhoeven" <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	"Enzo Ferreira" <ferreiraenzoa@gmail.com>,
	"Augusto Durães Camargo" <augusto.duraes33@gmail.com>,
	"Brendan Higgins" <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
	"Daniel Latypov" <dlatypov@google.com>,
	"David Gow" <davidgow@google.com>,
	"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
	<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
	"Linux Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	"KUnit Development" <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
	~lkcamp/patches@lists.sr.ht,
	"Rodrigo Siqueira" <rodrigosiqueiramelo@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/5] test_hash.c: split test_hash_init
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2021 14:27:39 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CANpmjNP6eZqQ8c+E5EsWdBSW-Q85FeJEu6gc7Puqro3igOXmWg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAAniXFQv6r+dmVYc9e-MuJxLqDoyayFLfBZw0FqW3hP7+RQXjg@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 14:03, Isabella B do Amaral
<isabellabdoamaral@usp.br> wrote:
>
> Hi, Marco,
>
> On Mon, Sep 27, 2021 at 5:17 AM Marco Elver <elver@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 27 Sept 2021 at 00:33, 'Isabella Basso' via KUnit Development
> > <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Split up test_hash_init so that it calls each test more explicitly
> > > insofar it is possible without rewriting the entire file. This aims at
> > > improving readability.
> > >
> > > Split tests performed on string_or as they don't interfere with those
> > > performed in hash_or. Also separate pr_info calls about skipped tests as
> > > they're not part of the tests themselves, but only warn about
> > > (un)defined arch-specific hash functions.
> > >
> > > Changes since v1:
> > > - As suggested by David Gow:
> > >   1. Rename arch-specific test functions.
> > >   2. Remove spare whitespace changes.
> > > - As suggested by Marco Elver:
> > >   1. Add struct for carrying test variables.
> >
> > Did the patches get mixed up? The struct doesn't appear to be introduced here.
>
> Yeah, thanks for the heads up! I must have mixed the messages when rebasing.
> Sorry about that. The struct was actually introduced in patch 2/5. Do
> you want to
> have a look at it or should I send the v3 with the correct message before that?

For review it's fine as-is, given it's a trivial change, but the final
series should have it in the right place.