Re: [PATCH v4 3/3] xfs: adjust handling of a few numerical mount options

Andy Shevchenko
2026-01-21T13:25:14Z

On Wed, Jan 21, 2026 at 08:21:42AM +0300, Dmitry Antipov wrote:
> On Tue, 2026-01-20 at 14:55 -0800, Darrick J. Wong wrote:
>
> > Yes.  Common code needs to have a rigorous self test suite, because I
> > see no point in replacing inadequately tested bespoke parsing code with
> > inadequately tested common parsing code.
>
> Nothing to disagree but:
>
> 1) My experience clearly shows that it takes a few patch submission
> iterations and a bunch of e-mails just to notice that the tests are
> mandatory for lib/ stuff. If it is really a requirement, it is worth
> to be mentioned somewhere under Documentation/process at least.

Feel free to submit an update! :-)

Sorry that I mentioned it one or two versions later than I should have.

> 2) I've traced memparse() back to 2006 at least, and (if I didn't miss
> something) there is no actual tests for it since them. And it's hard to
> see a point in testing memvalue() prior to testing its actual workhorse.

Yes, the historical code needs test cases. I added a few for get_option*()
for example before touching that code. So you're welcome to start test
cases for memparse(), I will appreciate that!

--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko