From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.6 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN,FREEMAIL_FROM, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS, URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6C040C433DF for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:10:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 009DA22253 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 10:10:02 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="Mpaj4BVj" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S2405964AbgJTKKB (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 06:10:01 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:56332 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S2405574AbgJTKKB (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2020 06:10:01 -0400 Received: from mail-oi1-x242.google.com (mail-oi1-x242.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::242]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 25049C061755 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 03:10:01 -0700 (PDT) Received: by mail-oi1-x242.google.com with SMTP id j7so1543158oie.12 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 03:10:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ePcLfsKZGL6b/FhNF8Rz0P6+eWGYOjLNtn2XMvzWr88=; b=Mpaj4BVjeH7h3iM9RXJs9iQuFVpjko1ODWnfURW/KiUniN33herD7dnsmEzl+5phiQ jlJhj41H+JQUuZUs4wXHsX0RHnW1dpmFphSCkQr75A4TEF3WkcKRWn7wGYqOYT5RZmow Oub2BnEQ/JDOXksk7of+sifSsFUPJrwPifFE0xHWa/630WyN3Uj9LWM0hPvU/pp6U6+l EYjRCNwccKofN6RDaF2QYi1bV+HsqA/WCzc0wLc94tOQR1/k27OxG5bVZYhuHc4OO756 eQmO49NaAVtm7lSGtgpgToLrs3HPtOZeWeFdRVcbbZAKZP7B6C/xQxggVyz/gr63IsZ3 hohw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ePcLfsKZGL6b/FhNF8Rz0P6+eWGYOjLNtn2XMvzWr88=; b=MFz3YY7wwbM4a7nrqaQyNdlGN6wnpDq12UnXfL+sGe3veDQgHHPO8nxxyRNueNAaIs gDcAoSrG6jxnF+AUwLcumD5c2kNbqq8dDWtzfJyidIDXLnEFSBGFbvnbPI+nS/OB3mS5 WdEAv5rDw9M86RRK+aOtZdD6nYJePo49akGp4AiuUUks5c8ha7GsMKnb8SlTaQjLfBKe +yP9NW4D+pyXHOK2D9ZLIm+euvABHBUOnFjssjjj2B7mWzKmCjPH2D2KncXjqphkcmoS zHLVA8hfsUnJ+gBSvMMSantadW4WUTX/UXaYCKVnmPxJYcpjVayBjAORjqQ3b3y8J71j RcEQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530le0D8mWt3hooV7hNKN6GmBe/w0emUdUPmDD/Y4IUZf783yaoT pVQJqTE1BXW6zOX4ZucimUR6HgD/1W0l1kuR5fLVowcyxIU5pQ== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxWpdqOlEE3hYpRkL4tzgc+B/OgI3cgP6KRp8b8C+QWuN9ZOp6d3EoeoaiE2e7wYd3W/OCTB4VaNF+Aaqt1lgo= X-Received: by 2002:aca:ec0d:: with SMTP id k13mr1284823oih.93.1603188600471; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 03:10:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <28c1e488bf644786af071e66b73450baa47ccc44.1603147657.git.gitgitgadget@gmail.com> <20201020023857.GC54484@nand.local> In-Reply-To: <20201020023857.GC54484@nand.local> From: Nipunn Koorapati Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:09:49 +0100 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 5/7] perf lint: check test-lint-shell-syntax in perf tests To: Taylor Blau Cc: Nipunn Koorapati via GitGitGadget , git@vger.kernel.org, Derrick Stolee , Utsav Shah , Nipunn Koorapati Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Oct 20, 2020 at 3:39 AM Taylor Blau wrote: > > I'm not necessarily opposed, but having this in t/perf/Makefile would > allow me to just run 'make' in 't/perf' and still have the scripts > linted there without having to involve a 'make' in 't'. > > For what it's worth, I suspect that this is because 't/Makefile' already > has a 'test-lint-shell-syntax' target, and 't/perf/Makefile' does not. I > think it would be OK to add it there, too, and move this change into > t/perf. Looked at doing this and noticed that there are several targets in test-lint in t/Makefile. This would involve duplicating them into t/perf/Makefile which seems like it would be poor form, especially given their complexity. Perhaps t/perf/Makefile could have a target which calls t/Makefile's test-lint target instead. Will play around with it. > > Makes sense. I wouldn't be opposed to breaking this out into an earlier > change (e.g., "it's about to become not OK to use seq in t/perf, so > prepare for that by replacing any invocations with test_seq()"), but I > think it's probably not worth it, since this patch is small as it is. > Yeah - I see the point, but I agree that since the patch is small, it's ok this way. If the patch grows significantly, I can make it into two patches --Nipunn