From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mgamail.intel.com (mgamail.intel.com [198.175.65.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0341F17C67 for ; Wed, 29 May 2024 13:11:14 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 ARC-Seal:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716988276; cv=none; b=TF7RGJtqfAqOaPkyUGiFZXZ8DAH985Z8ZpFuWyfPkf9gMQzWTJtCoo/p/HwsxfEwCXWb++4V/eNLXRMYKVU1w1MJlaxfVa2gLdTmaq1GaT9Q/pipVQ2WTWnlZuU10fd6hv1HtLKUl4+gS6aS3cz2G5938Z9RHyYpYEnQbSWztAE= ARC-Message-Signature:i=1; a=rsa-sha256; d=subspace.kernel.org; s=arc-20240116; t=1716988276; c=relaxed/simple; bh=/JehxSbeUDJfDGfvbwphWrIuaIJRd9kDO82Teb2w2OM=; h=Date:From:To:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:References:MIME-Version: Content-Type:Content-Disposition:In-Reply-To; b=oiYrXanwR8h+ZlqJp5QqGAfSDwiW/BwO7vs/TCJIs65G6mO3H+LDW6VMcH91c3PaBne0jWmSQ2ZnpSq5xWztovqEL9rAskb6YlF0+R7aUY6x2Df+C6BBLKnw9rmOCS1KSaF9kv/g+i5jjSCCQfCbyjpPg1agUanN9AvnPybd3s4= ARC-Authentication-Results:i=1; smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b=W4v67Zyj; arc=none smtp.client-ip=198.175.65.19 Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dmarc=pass (p=none dis=none) header.from=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; spf=none smtp.mailfrom=linux.intel.com Authentication-Results: smtp.subspace.kernel.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=intel.com header.i=@intel.com header.b="W4v67Zyj" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1716988275; x=1748524275; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=/JehxSbeUDJfDGfvbwphWrIuaIJRd9kDO82Teb2w2OM=; b=W4v67Zyjad3boWrIlTA0HMf2+0Ikc03i0zU21ZLAGGANplmxNKLsCpxJ zJ+HmcV98xUTnP9pco5gUX+EYTknXYN2Xd9sMTKcKvwZHJllSORBgerH+ wjUgjNpec3JHHFeyhuUU1+aQzzDbYT5+wIIhSYeKXhPPNLus82aqiY1i8 Km7ve7Uyeb7RGZe1/OfvRBIR+/x/ff+nKVaxKJiOx9MbzzyXbaR4QR1RC hQldOeo6VlZfvWOsvR1mJNyRO1kFV19mCb1R5eBVsKmGfe/4D3eV2KPBE K+j21cf7rGwdYkuVHRgQURExEyJtCVCwc0xHTqOCHMWBftmxvPg6p+pjY A==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: A4Yst0DDSm+SBy+slWnEmQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: hQw+44SdQGGAQE/52xJ22g== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6600,9927,11087"; a="13238089" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,198,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="13238089" Received: from fmviesa004.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.144]) by orvoesa111.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 May 2024 06:11:15 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: eLlgkaW7SBy5r+15/h4Evg== X-CSE-MsgGUID: vri4mTPmTKmcUGTvZHoaIQ== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.08,198,1712646000"; d="scan'208";a="39950712" Received: from smile.fi.intel.com ([10.237.72.54]) by fmviesa004.fm.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 29 May 2024 06:11:13 -0700 Received: from andy by smile.fi.intel.com with local (Exim 4.97) (envelope-from ) id 1sCJ5C-0000000Bnni-3MwU; Wed, 29 May 2024 16:11:10 +0300 Date: Wed, 29 May 2024 16:11:10 +0300 From: Andy Shevchenko To: Kent Gibson Cc: Bartosz Golaszewski , Linus Walleij , Bartosz Golaszewski , linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH libgpiod v2 2/4] tools: tests: use "$@" instead of $* Message-ID: References: <20240527-fix-bash-tests-v2-0-05d90cea24cd@linaro.org> <20240527-fix-bash-tests-v2-2-05d90cea24cd@linaro.org> <20240527124420.GA108041@rigel> <20240527235426.GB3504@rigel> Precedence: bulk X-Mailing-List: linux-gpio@vger.kernel.org List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240527235426.GB3504@rigel> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo On Tue, May 28, 2024 at 07:54:26AM +0800, Kent Gibson wrote: > 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. Sure, any tool has its own limitations. Esp. Andy's Eyeballs! > 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. No problem! -- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko