On 17 August 2026 14:54:12 BST, Joel Granados <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> >> 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!
