On Mon, 26 Oct 2020 13:44:33 -0700 Brendan Higgins <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2020 at 5:45 AM <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 08:35:26AM +0200, SeongJae Park wrote: > > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020 14:32:52 -0700 Brendan Higgins > > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, Oct 12, 2020 at 3:27 AM SeongJae Park <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > From: SeongJae Park <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > > 'kunit_kernel.kunittest_config' was constant at first, and therefore > > > > > it > > > > > used UPPER_SNAKE_CASE naming convention that usually means it is > > > > > constant in Python world. But, commit e3212513a8f0 ("kunit: Create > > > > > default config in '--build_dir'") made it modifiable to fix a use case > > > > > of the tool and thus the naming also changed to lower_snake_case. > > > > > However, this resulted in a confusion. As a result, some successing > > > > > changes made the tool unittest fail, and a fix[1] of it again incurred > > > > > the '--build_dir' use case failure. > > > > > > > > > > As the previous commit fixed the '--build_dir' use case without > > > > > modifying the variable again, this commit marks the variable as > > > > > constant > > > > > again with UPPER_SNAKE_CASE, to reduce future confusions. > > > > > > > > > > [1] Commit d43c7fb05765 ("kunit: tool: fix improper treatment of file > > > > > location") > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: SeongJae Park <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <[email protected]> > > > > > > Thanks :) > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for this! This is something I meant to fix a while ago and > > > > forgot about. > > > > > > > > One minor issue, this patch does not apply on torvalds/master right > > > > now. Could you please rebase this? > > > > > > Surely of course, I will send next version soon. > > > > May I ask what happened to [1]? > > I mean it seems these two are goind to collide. > > > > Brendan? > > > > [1]: > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/[email protected]/ > > Sorry for the confusion here. After an initial glance at your patches > (before I did the review end of last week) I thought only the first > patch from SeongJae would potentially conflict with yours (Andy's) > (hence why I hadn't reviewed it yet, I was waiting until after I > looked at yours). > > I noticed on Friday that SeongJae's changes were actually fully > encompassed by Andy's, so I am taking Andy's not SongJae's. Sorry, I > was going to notify SongJae today, but you beat me to it. > > Sorry everyone. It's ok, I understand the situation and respect your decision. After all, what I really wanted was just fixing the problem by whoever. I would like to say thank you to Andy for fixing it instead of me :) Also, thank you Brendan, for maintaining the cool Kunit ;) Thanks, SeongJae Park
