On Tue, Sep 26, 2023 at 9:29 PM Athira Rajeev <atraj...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > On 25-Sep-2023, at 1:34 PM, kajoljain <kj...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 9/7/23 22:45, Athira Rajeev wrote: > >> From: root <r...@ltcden13-lp4.aus.stglabs.ibm.com> > >> > >> shellcheck was run on perf tool shell scripts s a pre-requisite > >> to include a build option for shellcheck discussed here: > >> https://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-perf-users/msg25553.html > >> > >> And fixes were added for the coding/formatting issues in > >> two patchsets: > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20230613164145.50488-1-atraj...@linux.vnet.ibm.com/ > >> https://lore.kernel.org/linux-perf-users/20230709182800.53002-1-atraj...@linux.vnet.ibm.com/ > >> > >> Three additional issues are observed with shellcheck "0.6" and > >> this patchset covers those. With this patchset, > >> > >> # for F in $(find tests/shell/ -perm -o=x -name '*.sh'); do shellcheck -S > >> warning $F; done > >> # echo $? > >> 0 > >> > > > > Patchset looks good to me. > > > > Reviewed-by: Kajol Jain <kj...@linux.ibm.com> > > > > Thanks, > > Kajol Jain > > > > Hi Namhyunbg, > > Can you please check for this patchset also
Sure, it's applied to perf-tools-next, thanks!
