On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 7:12 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 05:36:33PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 5:25 PM Andy Shevchenko
[off-list ref] wrote:

quoted

On Wed, Oct 22, 2025 at 03:10:40PM +0200, Bartosz Golaszewski wrote:

...

quoted

quoted

quoted

+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