On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 16:39, Alejandro Colomar <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > > Hi Marco, > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2025 at 09:44:09AM +0200, Marco Elver wrote: > > On Mon, 7 Jul 2025 at 07:06, Alejandro Colomar <a...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > While doing this, I detected some anomalies in the existing code: > > > > > > mm/kfence/kfence_test.c: > > > > > > - The last call to scnprintf() did increment 'cur', but it's > > > unused after that, so it was dead code. I've removed the dead > > > code in this patch. > > > > That was done to be consistent with the other code for readability, > > and to be clear where the next bytes should be appended (if someone > > decides to append more). There is no runtime dead code, the compiler > > optimizes away the assignment. But I'm indifferent, so removing the > > assignment is fine if you prefer that. > > Yeah, I guessed that might be the reason. I'm fine restoring it if you > prefer it. I tend to use -Wunused-but-set-variable, but if it is not > used here and doesn't trigger, I guess it's fine to keep it.
Feel free to make it warning-free, I guess that's useful. > > Did you run the tests? Do they pass? > > I don't know how to run them. I've only built the kernel. If you point > me to instructions on how to run them, I'll do so. Thanks! Should just be CONFIG_KFENCE_KUNIT_TEST=y -- then boot kernel and check that the test reports "ok". Thanks, -- marco
