From: Kent Gibson <warthog618@gmail.com>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>
Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski <brgl@bgdev.pl>,
Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@linaro.org>,
Bartosz Golaszewski <bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org>,
linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH libgpiod v2 2/4] tools: tests: use "$@" instead of $*
Date: Tue, 28 May 2024 07:54:26 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20240527235426.GB3504@rigel> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <ZlSyscNCrZv0LRHL@smile.fi.intel.com>
On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 07:20:01PM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 08:44:20PM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote:
> > On Mon, May 27, 2024 at 02:02:34PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > It also doesn't like looping on find results in patch 4[2], though that
> > is not related to your change, so leave it and I'll fix it later?
>
> Does it really mean _to fix_ rather than _to "fix"_? I mean how do we know that
> shellcheck is 100% correct tool and has no bugs?
>
How do we know anything?
In this case you can read the description of the faults, which I had linked,
and see if that makes sense to you. And we test the fixed code to ensure
it still works as intended.
I'm not claiming shellcheck is fool-proof, or 100% correct, or 100% complete,
but it is more available and repeatable than Andy's Eyeballs.
And if we do find bugs in it we can always fix those too.
As I stated earlier, if you have a better metric to use then I'm more than
happy to compare, but so far shellcheck seems a reasonable option to me.
Cheers,
Kent.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-27 23:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-27 12:02 [PATCH libgpiod v2 0/4] tools: tests: fix a few issues in bash scripts Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-05-27 12:02 ` [PATCH libgpiod v2 1/4] tools: tests: use tabs for indentation consistently Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-05-27 12:02 ` [PATCH libgpiod v2 2/4] tools: tests: use "$@" instead of $* Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-05-27 12:44 ` Kent Gibson
2024-05-27 12:51 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-05-27 12:57 ` Kent Gibson
2024-05-27 13:20 ` Kent Gibson
2024-05-27 15:45 ` Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-05-27 16:17 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-05-27 23:39 ` Kent Gibson
2024-05-29 13:08 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-05-29 13:18 ` Kent Gibson
2024-05-29 13:27 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-05-29 13:44 ` Kent Gibson
2024-05-29 14:33 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-05-30 0:22 ` Kent Gibson
2024-05-30 14:14 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-05-27 16:20 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-05-27 23:54 ` Kent Gibson [this message]
2024-05-29 13:11 ` Andy Shevchenko
2024-05-27 12:02 ` [PATCH libgpiod v2 3/4] tools: tests: remove unneeded ';' in while loops Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-05-27 12:02 ` [PATCH libgpiod v2 4/4] tools: tests: remove dependency on grep Bartosz Golaszewski
2024-05-27 16:16 ` Andy Shevchenko
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20240527235426.GB3504@rigel \
--to=warthog618@gmail.com \
--cc=andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com \
--cc=bartosz.golaszewski@linaro.org \
--cc=brgl@bgdev.pl \
--cc=linus.walleij@linaro.org \
--cc=linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox