On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 05:36:33PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 5:25 PM Andy Shevchenko
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 03:10:40PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
...
> > > +static void string_test_strends(struct kunit *test)
> > > +{
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, strends("foo-bar", "bar"));
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, strends("foo-bar", "-bar"));
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, strends("foobar", "foobar"));
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, strends("foobar", ""));
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, strends("bar", "foobar"));
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, strends("", "foo"));
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, strends("foobar", "ba"));
> > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, strends("", ""));
> > > +}
> >
> > Have you checked the binary file? If you want this to be properly
> > implemented,
> > generate the suffix. (Actually making the function static inline makes my
> > point
> > really visible)
>
> Andy, this is bikeshedding. This is literally the least important
> piece of this series. It doesn't matter for the big picture whether
> this is inlined or not.
It's definitely not a bikeshedding. I try to keep a bit consistency here and
I don't see the point of bloating a kernel (binary as well) for the function
that just a couple of lines with simple basic calls.
Also note that with inlined version strlen() for string literals will be
calculated at _compile-time_! This is clear benefit.
Really, library code is not as simple as dropping something to somewhere...
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
