On 9/16/23 19:22, Javier Carrasco wrote:
> Defining the 'len' variable inside the 'patten_buf' as unsigned
> makes it more consistent with its actual meaning and the rest of the
> size variables in the test. Moreover, this removes an implicit
> conversion in the fscanf function call.
>
Considering the fact that the pattern buffer length can't be negative or
larger that 4096, I really don't think that it is a necessary change.
> Additionally, remove the unused variable 'it' from the reset_ioctl test.
>
Your patches should always contain only one logical change. If you, for
instance, remove redundant blank lines, combining it with something else
is fine, but otherwise you should split the changes up.
> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <[email protected]>
> ---
> Defining the 'len' variable inside the 'patten_buf' as unsigned
> makes it more consistent with its actual meaning and the rest of the
> size variables in the test. Moreover, this removes an implicit
> conversion in the fscanf function call.
>
> Additionally, remove the unused variable 'it' from the reset_ioctl test.
You don't need this text here. Usually it is the place for changelog
between patch versions if we have more than one version of the patch.
For instance, if you send a patch V2, it could look like this:
Signed-off-by: ...
---
V1 -> V2:
- Improve something
- Add something
So, don't repeat the commit message here :)
Anyway, great job! I believe this test could be enhanced in lots of
ways, so I look forward to seeing new patches related to it from you :)
--
Kind regards,
Ivan Orlov
Hi Ivan,
On 16.09.23 20:05, Ivan Orlov wrote:
> On 9/16/23 19:22, Javier Carrasco wrote:
>> Defining the 'len' variable inside the 'patten_buf' as unsigned
>> makes it more consistent with its actual meaning and the rest of the
>> size variables in the test. Moreover, this removes an implicit
>> conversion in the fscanf function call.
>>
>
> Considering the fact that the pattern buffer length can't be negative or
> larger that 4096, I really don't think that it is a necessary change.
>
>> Additionally, remove the unused variable 'it' from the reset_ioctl test.
>>
>
> Your patches should always contain only one logical change. If you, for
> instance, remove redundant blank lines, combining it with something else
> is fine, but otherwise you should split the changes up.
>
Removing an unused variable is actually removing a blank line from a
logical point of view. Is an extra patch not overkill considering that
it cannot affect the code behavior?
>> Signed-off-by: Javier Carrasco <[email protected]>
>> ---
>> Defining the 'len' variable inside the 'patten_buf' as unsigned
>> makes it more consistent with its actual meaning and the rest of the
>> size variables in the test. Moreover, this removes an implicit
>> conversion in the fscanf function call.
>>
>> Additionally, remove the unused variable 'it' from the reset_ioctl test.
>
> You don't need this text here. Usually it is the place for changelog
> between patch versions if we have more than one version of the patch.
> For instance, if you send a patch V2, it could look like this:
>
Sorry, this got merged from the cover letter by b4. I will be more
careful next time, thanks!
> Signed-off-by: ...
> ---
> V1 -> V2:
> - Improve something
> - Add something
>
> So, don't repeat the commit message here :)
>
> Anyway, great job! I believe this test could be enhanced in lots of
> ways, so I look forward to seeing new patches related to it from you :)
>
> --
> Kind regards,
> Ivan Orlov
Thanks for your feedback and best regards,
Javier Carrasco