On Mon, 20 Apr 2026 at 09:38, Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 18, 2026 at 09:06:02PM +1200, David Rowley wrote:
> > 2. Doing #1 means the function can't be STRICT. I do think it's wrong
> > that the function is marked as strict. That's normally reserved for
> > functions that we needn't call because NULL input(s) yield a NULL
> > output. That's not the case for this function.
>
> Using the existing HEAD approach where STRICT avoids these extra NULL
> checks, or adding explicit NULL checks without STRICT does not strike
> me as a big difference in this context.
I had to remove STRICT to allow NULL to be passed for the seed. When I
first modified test_bitmapset.c to only choose a random seed when it
received NULL, I thought it was strange that the function appeared to
return NULL. It took me a minute to realise I was getting the STRICT
NULL short-circuiting.
> > I felt it was worth fixing these now as the function I plan to add
> > there does #1, #2, #3 and #4. If I add the new function for v20, the
> > discrepancy seems questionable.
>
> It is a test module, it would be a big issue if new pieces are
> backpatched in this area. In short I'm fine with these. Thanks for
> asking.
Did you mean "wouldn't"?
Thanks for looking. I pushed before I saw your reply.
David
