On Fri, Feb 7, 2025 at 2:33 AM David Gow <david...@google.com> wrote: > > Thanks very much for doing this. I'm happy with these changes from a KUnit > POV. > > Two things I think we need to be careful about: > - This and the printf test are both changing the m68k configs. This is > fine, but could lead to a (harmless) merge conflict, so we should make > that clear and try to avoid having them go up in separate trees. (And, > if one gets merged first, rebase the other.) > - There has been some pushback on some kselftest->kunit conversions in > the past, especially if the test is being used to debug live systems > (which typically don't have CONFIG_KUNIT enabled). I can't personally > imagine that as an issue with scanf (though my imagination isn't > perfect), so I'd doubt it's a problem. > > I'm assuming that, as mentioned in v2, these will go in via printk, > not ksefltest/kunit. Either would work for me (but, as mentioned > above, I think this and the printf tests should go in via the same > tree). > > This series is: > Reviewed-by: David Gow <david...@google.com> > > Cheers, > -- David
Thanks for the review David. Given the discussion on the printf series I applied the same scrutiny to this series; I reduced the churn, and kept the original control flow and failure messages. I'll pick up your Reviewed-by and send v4 shortly. Cheers. Tamir
