On Tue, 2026-01-20 at 13:36 +0100, Gabriele Monaco wrote:

On Tue, 2026-01-20 at 08:34 -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:

quoted

On Tue, Jan 20, 2026 at 10:03:20AM +0100, Gabriele Monaco wrote:

quoted

On Mon, 2026-01-19 at 17:46 -0300, Wander Lairson Costa wrote:

quoted

Add a node_marker class constant to the Automata class to replace the
hardcoded "{node" string literal used throughout the DOT file parsing
logic. This follows the existing pattern established by the init_marker
and invalid_state_str class constants in the same class.

The "{node" string is used as a marker to identify node declaration
lines in DOT files during state variable extraction and cursor
positioning. Extracting it to a named constant improves code
maintainability and makes the marker's purpose explicit.

Signed-off-by: Wander Lairson Costa <redacted>

Looks fine for me, thanks!

I wonder if we could merge this patch with 15/26 that is introducing a
very
similar change on init_marker.

The idea was to make each patch doing one thing to make the reviewer's
life easier (I think I broke my own rule in a couple of patch). But if
there is a strong feeling about the merge, I could merged them in a
possible v2 patch series.

Yeah I get the idea, I guess I could just pick the most obvious patches and
send
a PR to Steve before the merge window, so I can see directly if it makes sense
to squash them and you don't need to send them all in the v2.

Screamed victory too fast.. I tried the patches on the latest version of the
tree (which reached already linux-next) and they're have several conflicts.

I don't have time to rebase them one by one right now, let's continue with this
series as a whole.
As a rule of thumb, considering these patches get first reviewed, then PR-ed to
Steve and then to Linus, I'd favour to lower the number if possible, but feel
free to choose where it makes sense for them to stay separate.

Thanks,
Gabriele

I'm leaving the longer or trickier ones for the next cycle so that I can test
them a bit better and perhaps get some rvgen selftest help with that. Also for
some it's better to wait for Nam's comments.

Will let you know the ones I pick. Thanks again for the extensive work!

Gabriele

quoted

quoted

Anyway:

Reviewed-by: Gabriele Monaco <gmonaco@redhat.com>

quoted

---
 tools/verification/rvgen/rvgen/automata.py | 9 +++++----
 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/tools/verification/rvgen/rvgen/automata.py

b/tools/verification/rvgen/rvgen/automata.py
index a6889d0c26c3f..5f23db1855cd3 100644

--- a/tools/verification/rvgen/rvgen/automata.py
+++ b/tools/verification/rvgen/rvgen/automata.py

@@ -29,6 +29,7 @@ class Automata:

 
     invalid_state_str = "INVALID_STATE"
     init_marker = "__init_"
+    node_marker = "{node"
 
     def __init__(self, file_path, model_name=None):
         self.__dot_path = file_path

@@ -76,7 +77,7 @@ class Automata:

         for cursor, line in enumerate(self.__dot_lines):
             split_line = line.split()
 
-            if len(split_line) and split_line[0] == "{node":
+            if len(split_line) and split_line[0] == self.node_marker:
                 return cursor
 
         raise AutomataError("Could not find a beginning state")

@@ -91,9 +92,9 @@ class Automata:

                 continue
 
             if state == 0:
-                if line[0] == "{node":
+                if line[0] == self.node_marker:
                     state = 1
-            elif line[0] != "{node":
+            elif line[0] != self.node_marker:
                 break
         else:
             raise AutomataError("Could not find beginning event")

@@ -116,7 +117,7 @@ class Automata:

         # process nodes
         for line in islice(self.__dot_lines, cursor, None):
             split_line = line.split()
-            if not split_line or split_line[0] != "{node":
+            if not split_line or split_line[0] != self.node_marker:
                 break
 
             raw_state = split_line[-1]