On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 10:34:37AM +0100, Milan Broz wrote: > On 3/4/26 10:00 AM, Eric Biggers wrote: > > On Wed, Mar 04, 2026 at 09:25:02AM +0100, Milan Broz wrote: > > > Okay, it sounds like the verity-compat-test script isn't open for > > contributions then. Would have been nice to know earlier, but thanks > > for letting me know now. I'll plan to start some new tests for > > kselftests. > > That's not what I said, just I would prefer adding new test without > the need to completely reformatting the test.
Adding new test cases to that script naturally requires understanding a lot of the existing code so the new cases can be properly integrated. For example new test cases logically should use the existing helper functions, common global variables, and failure reporting mechanism; and they shouldn't duplicate or interfere with the existing test cases. And in some cases a new test case may be much more easily handled as an extension or fix to an existing one; for example the easiest way to test fec_roots != 2 probably would be to just fix check_fec() to honor its existing fec_roots parameter as seems to have been intended. But with the existing script not following modern shell-scripting practices like naming parameters, using local variables, and passing 'shellcheck', I found that to be a challenge for understanding the existing code and adding new code. Especially when these practices are causing bugs, like the ones my merge request would have fixed. So that's why I thought a broader cleanup of this test script would be really useful first. And I was glad to do that, which I did. None of this was meant of a criticism of you; I'm just trying to help. But it's clear I wasted my time and should focus my efforts on the kernel, kselftests, and other userspace projects. So I'll continue to do that and leave cryptsetup alone. Sorry for trying to contribute. - Eric
