On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 7:12 PM Andy Shevchenko <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 05:36:33PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 5:25 PM Andy Shevchenko > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 03:10:40PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote: > > ... > > > > > +static void string_test_strends(struct kunit *test) > > > > +{ > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, strends("foo-bar", "bar")); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, strends("foo-bar", "-bar")); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, strends("foobar", "foobar")); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, strends("foobar", "")); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, strends("bar", "foobar")); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, strends("", "foo")); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, strends("foobar", "ba")); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, strends("", "")); > > > > +} > > > > > > Have you checked the binary file? If you want this to be properly > > > implemented, > > > generate the suffix. (Actually making the function static inline makes my > > > point > > > really visible) > > > > Andy, this is bikeshedding. This is literally the least important > > piece of this series. It doesn't matter for the big picture whether > > this is inlined or not. > > It's definitely not a bikeshedding. I try to keep a bit consistency here and > I don't see the point of bloating a kernel (binary as well) for the function > that just a couple of lines with simple basic calls. > > Also note that with inlined version strlen() for string literals will be > calculated at _compile-time_! This is clear benefit. > > Really, library code is not as simple as dropping something to somewhere... >
Ok, whatever I'll make it static inline. Bart
