On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 7:17 AM Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> On Tue 2025-02-04 05:27:23, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > Oops, meant to address this in the last reply.
> >
> > On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 3:39 AM Petr Mladek wrote:
> > >
> > > Should this go via the printk tree, please?
> > > Or is David going to
On Tue 2025-02-04 05:27:23, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> Oops, meant to address this in the last reply.
>
> On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 3:39 AM Petr Mladek wrote:
> >
> > Should this go via the printk tree, please?
> > Or is David going to take it via the kunit tree?
>
> Going via printk would be my pre
Oops, meant to address this in the last reply.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 3:39 AM Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> Should this go via the printk tree, please?
> Or is David going to take it via the kunit tree?
Going via printk would be my preference.
On Tue, Feb 4, 2025 at 3:39 AM Petr Mladek wrote:
>
> On Mon 2025-02-03 06:48:05, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
[...]
> > diff --git a/lib/Makefile b/lib/Makefile
> > index d5cfc7afbbb8..a53cf6dd1505 100644
> > --- a/lib/Makefile
> > +++ b/lib/Makefile
> > @@ -85,7 +85,6 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_TEST_STATIC_KE
On Mon 2025-02-03 06:48:05, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> Convert the scanf() self-test to a KUnit test.
>
> In the interest of keeping the patch reasonably-sized this doesn't
> refactor the tests into proper parameterized tests - it's all one big
> test case.
>
> Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein
> A
5 matches
Mail list logo
