From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <w@1wt.eu>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.6 (2021-04-09) on gnuweeb.org
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=SPF_HELO_PASS,SPF_PASS
	autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.6
Received: from 1wt.eu (wtarreau.pck.nerim.net [62.212.114.60])
	by gnuweeb.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBCFE7E317
	for <gwml@vger.gnuweeb.org>; Wed, 20 Jul 2022 17:14:41 +0000 (UTC)
Received: (from willy@localhost)
	by pcw.home.local (8.15.2/8.15.2/Submit) id 26KHEWOS004283;
	Wed, 20 Jul 2022 19:14:32 +0200
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2022 19:14:32 +0200
From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
To: Ammar Faizi <ammarfaizi2@gnuweeb.org>
Cc: "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@kernel.org>,
        Pranith Kumar <bobby.prani@gmail.com>,
        Alviro Iskandar Setiawan <alviro.iskandar@gnuweeb.org>,
        David Laight <David.Laight@ACULAB.COM>,
        Mark Brown <broonie@kernel.org>,
        Linus Torvalds <torvalds@linux-foundation.org>,
        Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        "Fernanda Ma'rouf" <fernandafmr12@gnuweeb.org>,
        Linux Kselftest Mailing List <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        GNU/Weeb Mailing List <gwml@vger.gnuweeb.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/17] nolibc: add preliminary self tests
Message-ID: <20220720171432.GD4159@1wt.eu>
References: <20220719214449.2520-1-w@1wt.eu>
 <67a92005-4e13-909a-1693-dfb86d8114c0@gnuweeb.org>
 <20220720162054.GB4159@1wt.eu>
 <ee428948-eaea-49bd-d8a3-c054a57f0094@gnuweeb.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ee428948-eaea-49bd-d8a3-c054a57f0094@gnuweeb.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13)
List-Id: <gwml.vger.gnuweeb.org>

On Thu, Jul 21, 2022 at 12:05:14AM +0700, Ammar Faizi wrote:
> > But again, I'm open to better proposals. I reached the limits of my
> > imagination there, but I do value the ability to "yyp" one line, change
> > two arguments and gain one extra test for a different combination, and
> > I really do not want to lose that simplicity. Note that for more complex
> > tests, it's trivial to add a dedicated function and that's what was done
> > for getdents64() which also serves as an example.
> 
> OK, I understand the reason behind this now. I and Fernanda will try
> to visit this again at around 5.20-rc. *If* we can find a better
> design that matches your requirements, we will send you an RFC to
> improve it too.

You would be very welcome, thank you!

Willy