On 11/26/24 20:38, Paul Moore wrote:
On Thu, Nov 14, 2024 at 11:25 AM Shuah Khan skhan@linuxfoundation.org wrote:
On 11/12/24 11:28, Amit Vadhavana wrote:
- Remove unnecessary `tctx` variable, use `ctx` directly.
- Simplified code with no functional changes.
I would rephrase the short to simply say Remove unused variable, as refactor implies more extensive changes than what this patch is actually doing.
Please write complete sentences instead of bullet points in the change log.
How did you find this problem? Do include the details on how in the change log.
Signed-off-by: Amit Vadhavana av2082000@gmail.com
tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c | 7 +++---- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c b/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c index 66dec47e3ca3..732e89fe99c0 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/lsm/lsm_set_self_attr_test.c @@ -56,16 +56,15 @@ TEST(flags_zero_lsm_set_self_attr) TEST(flags_overset_lsm_set_self_attr) { const long page_size = sysconf(_SC_PAGESIZE);
char *ctx = calloc(page_size, 1);
struct lsm_ctx *ctx = calloc(page_size, 1);Why not name this tctx and avoid changes to the ASSERT_EQs below?
__u32 size = page_size;
struct lsm_ctx *tctx = (struct lsm_ctx *)ctx; ASSERT_NE(NULL, ctx); if (attr_lsm_count()) {ASSERT_LE(1, lsm_get_self_attr(LSM_ATTR_CURRENT, tctx, &size,
ASSERT_LE(1, lsm_get_self_attr(LSM_ATTR_CURRENT, ctx, &size, 0)); }
ASSERT_EQ(-1, lsm_set_self_attr(LSM_ATTR_CURRENT | LSM_ATTR_PREV, tctx,
ASSERT_EQ(-1, lsm_set_self_attr(LSM_ATTR_CURRENT | LSM_ATTR_PREV, ctx, size, 0)); free(ctx);You have to change this tctx for sure.
With these changes:
Reviewed-by: Shuah Khan skhan@linuxfoundation.org
Paul, James,
Please do let me know if you would me to take this through kselftest tree.
Amit has already posted a v2 with the requested changes, but I wanted to get back to you on this even if this patch is outdated ... Shuah, what is your preference for things like this? My general policy is that patches only affecting one subsystem tree should be taken by the associated subsystem to minimize merge headaches and other ugliness, however, the kselftest is an interesting subsystem in that it relies so heavily on others that I'm not sure my policy makes as much sense here :)
kselftest patches usually go through subsystem trees because of the merge problems you mentioned. I take them through kselftest tree if subsystem maintainers want me to. Some do and I pick them up.
I pick up patches if I don't see response from subsystem maintainers.
thanks, -- Shuah