Nouveau - Oct 2025 - [PATCH v5 6/9] rust: bitfield: Add KUNIT tests for bitfield

> On Oct 3, 2025, at 8:38?PM, Alexandre Courbot <acourbot at
nvidia.com> wrote:
> 
> ?On Sat Oct 4, 2025 at 12:23 AM JST, Joel Fernandes wrote:
>>> - The right field is actually written (i.e. if the offset is off by
one,
>>>  the getter will return the expected result even though the
bitfield
>>>  has the wrong value),
>>> - No other field has been affected.
>>> 
>>> So something like:
>>> 
>>>    pte = pte.set_present(true);
>>>    assert!(pte.present());
>>>    assert(pte.into(), 0x1u64);
>>> 
>>>    pte = pte.set_writable(true);
>>>    assert!(pte.writable());
>>>    assert(pte.into(), 0x3u64);
>>> 
>>> It might look a bit gross, but it is ok since these are not
doctests
>>> that users are going to take as a reference, so we case improve
test
>>> coverage at the detriment of readability.
>>> 
>> 
>> Ack. I will add these.
>> 
>> Thanks for the review! (I am assuming with these changes you're Ok
with me
>> carrying your Reviewed-by tag on this patch as well, but please let me
know if
>> there is a concern.)
> 
> Please do not add tags that haven't been explicitly given. If we start
> assuming one another's stance about patches, the trust we can have in
> these tags is significantly reduced.
Oh, I thought you told me you reviewed the patch privately, but consider the tag
dropped.
> 
> Doing so also doesn't achieve anything in terms of efficiency; if I am
> ok with v3 I can give my Reviewed-by on it, and the tag can be picked up
> along with the patch when it is applied.
Well, it can be efficient. It really depends. I have been contributing upstream
for about 15 years if you see the git log, often when someone chats privately
with me like you did and they told me they are ok with a patch, I save them the
trouble and add their review tag especially after they already added their tag
to all my other patches. Surprisingly though this is probably the first time
anyone has been pissed off about it.  Anyway I will not add your tag henceforth
unless you publicly reply (or you let me know otherwise by chat).

Anyway thank you for the review of this patch,

Joel

On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 6:14?PM Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf at nvidia.com>
wrote:
>
> Well, it can be efficient. It really depends. I have been contributing
upstream for about 15 years if you see the git log, often when someone chats
privately with me like you did and they told me they are ok with a patch, I save
them the trouble and add their review tag especially after they already added
their tag to all my other patches. Surprisingly though this is probably the
first time anyone has been pissed off about it.  Anyway I will not add your tag
henceforth unless you publicly reply (or you let me know otherwise by chat).
If they just say they are OK with a patch, that would just mean an
Acked-by, not a Reviewed-by.

In any case, the documentation states those tags cannot be added
without permission -- if someone gives you a tag privately, it is best
that you tell them to please send it in the mailing list instead. That
way there is no confusion and others (including tooling, e.g.
patchwork and b4) can see it.

Thanks!

Cheers,
Miguel

On 10/6/2025 12:40 PM, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 4, 2025 at 6:14?PM Joel Fernandes <joelagnelf at
nvidia.com> wrote:
>>
>> Well, it can be efficient. It really depends. I have been contributing
upstream for about 15 years if you see the git log, often when someone chats
privately with me like you did and they told me they are ok with a patch, I save
them the trouble and add their review tag especially after they already added
their tag to all my other patches. Surprisingly though this is probably the
first time anyone has been pissed off about it.  Anyway I will not add your tag
henceforth unless you publicly reply (or you let me know otherwise by chat).
> 
> If they just say they are OK with a patch, that would just mean an
> Acked-by, not a Reviewed-by.
>> In any case, the documentation states those tags cannot be added
> without permission -- if someone gives you a tag privately, it is best
> that you tell them to please send it in the mailing list instead. That
> way there is no confusion and others (including tooling, e.g.
> patchwork and b4) can see it.
Sure, certainly it goes against docs/guidelines to add a tag *without
permission*. I don't think anyone disputed that? I don't think I was
advocating
adding RB tags randomly without consent at all - please don't get me wrong.
:-)

And no doubts that publicly replying with RB tags is the best way.

cheers,

 - Joel