From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [213.254.12.146]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42565C433FE for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 18:45:38 +0000 (UTC) Received: from picard.linux.it (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DE473CADF8 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 20:45:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (in-6.smtp.seeweb.it [IPv6:2001:4b78:1:20::6]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-384)) (No client certificate requested) by picard.linux.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AF3993C80B3 for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 20:45:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from smtp-out2.suse.de (smtp-out2.suse.de [IPv6:2001:67c:2178:6::1d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by in-6.smtp.seeweb.it (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C64A5140118E for ; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 20:45:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by smtp-out2.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 893561F7AB; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 18:45:23 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_rsa; t=1664909123; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NIpA+DHR/jeqPflDQYfbIIZ+eKaNKMSMDXXjCu/B3/I=; b=uTGJfTdVR029xp0+mpHShNBuDrBlv4PmWcHY+0m9EDw8q2on+YfMncxCPR4XrWwIktEhjX AoDUbipY9+iv3fdlC1M6/OQH7DPFvd7LpWdVL1iWO5dbsEBEie201xLh4h/S/7CIxt4tDw QicoPkcXKStBKOOnqrsVt2Lc4Rn9kJ0= DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=ed25519-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=suse.cz; s=susede2_ed25519; t=1664909123; h=from:from:reply-to:reply-to:date:date:message-id:message-id:to:to: cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=NIpA+DHR/jeqPflDQYfbIIZ+eKaNKMSMDXXjCu/B3/I=; b=6PLwP9CAvSYuaEuFolgvyXhvdpIP4TkNm7CDvgR/0UF529zYvc/BG7Wro2IqfcMdj6fYW4 04zVv0964b7F0VDQ== Received: from imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de [192.168.254.74]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature ECDSA (P-521) server-digest SHA512) (No client certificate requested) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 24217139D2; Tue, 4 Oct 2022 18:45:23 +0000 (UTC) Received: from dovecot-director2.suse.de ([192.168.254.65]) by imap2.suse-dmz.suse.de with ESMTPSA id a8WsBkN/PGPNXQAAMHmgww (envelope-from ); Tue, 04 Oct 2022 18:45:23 +0000 Date: Tue, 4 Oct 2022 20:45:16 +0200 From: Petr Vorel To: Jan Stancek Message-ID: References: <43d65409eb3290b09e1c3a21cb0dc079c5f4849c.1664801307.git.jstancek@redhat.com> <938c864ee6bb82ffdee9371bd802642ffedc606c.1664872194.git.jstancek@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.102.4 at in-6.smtp.seeweb.it X-Virus-Status: Clean Subject: Re: [LTP] [PATCH v2] lib: introduce safe_write() retry X-BeenThere: ltp@lists.linux.it X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Linux Test Project List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Petr Vorel Cc: ltp@lists.linux.it Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: ltp-bounces+ltp=archiver.kernel.org@lists.linux.it Sender: "ltp" Hi Jan, ... > > LGTM. I just wonder if we need to add it to lib/safe_macros.c, > It's currently shared code. Ah, I'm sorry. > > which implements it for the old API. Would it work to add it only to > > tst_safe_macros.c and tst_safe_macros.h (instead of safe_macros_fn.h)? > We could have 2 implementations for safe_write, but modifying existing one > seemed better option. There's no harm supporting new option in old API too. Sure, np. Kind regards, Petr -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp