On Mon, May 25, 2026 at 05:30:25PM +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> Surprising it is. I'll double-check tomorrow. Thanks.
The test on HEAD was a bit incorrect; it included three checks based
on offsets that did not make sense as the value is not reported in the
function. I guess that this was just an incorrect rebase, that we've
missed when the patch got merged.
There was also a typo in the test, which I have fixed while on it.
Done as of 6aa26be288fa. Thanks.
--
Michael
