Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220502093625.GA23225@kernel.org> <CAGS_qxoc=AnkzUtaFpJvF08Z_Z15h9sZxYNQT5-S9C7aM4poEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CANiq72m70q+zviHVNSV_AEwOByVBiMuSQL5vyo2UMMpD-vd+_Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72m70q+zviHVNSV_AEwOByVBiMuSQL5vyo2UMMpD-vd+_Q@mail.gmail.com>
From:   David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Date:   Wed, 4 May 2022 22:04:57 +0800
Message-ID: <CABVgOSmkZ9EXijBRx_pvS=Opizb1z2632B5rVsd1WRNOL5o8GA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: take `kunit_assert` as `const`
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>,
        Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@kernel.org>,
        Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        linux-kernel <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 4, 2022 at 4:09 PM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 9:44 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
> >
> > Thanks for this, the code definitely should have been this way from the start.
> >
> > I had wanted to make this change but mistakenly thought the format
> > func took it via non-const for some reason.
> > I must have misread it once and got it into my head that we were
> > leaving the door open for mutable child structs (which sounds like a
> > bad idea).
>
> Thanks for reviewing it so quickly! Yeah, I was unsure too if there
> was an external reason such as some future plan to use the mutability
> as you mention or maybe some out-of-tree user was relying on it
> already.
>
> But I thought it would be best to make it stricter until it is
> actually needed (if ever); or if there is an actual user for
> mutability, it should be documented/noted in-tree.

I definitely agree here -- I can't recall any particular plan that
would require this to be non-const, and we can always change it back
if we really need to.

> It also simplifies a tiny bit a Rust-side call to
> `kunit_do_failed_assertion` that I am using within generated Rust
> documentation tests.

Very exciting! I assume that's the PR here:
https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/pull/757

Cheers,
-- David