On Fri, Oct 30, 2020 at 11:45 AM Andrii Nakryiko
<andrii.nakryiko@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
[...]
> > > @@ -6775,10 +6774,15 @@ static void do_test_dedup(unsigned int test_num)
> > > err = -1;
> > > goto done;
> > > }
> > > - if (CHECK(memcmp((void *)test_type,
> > > - (void *)expect_type,
> > > - test_size),
> > > - "type #%d: contents differ", i)) {
> >
> > I guess test_size and expect_size are not needed anymore?
>
> hm.. they are used just one check above, still needed
Hmm... I don't know what happened to me back then.. Please ignore.
>
> >
> > > + if (CHECK(btf_kind(test_type) != btf_kind(expect_type),
> > > + "type %d kind: exp %d != got %u\n",
> > > + i, btf_kind(expect_type), btf_kind(test_type))) {
> > > + err = -1;
> > > + goto done;
> > > + }
> > > + if (CHECK(test_type->info != expect_type->info,
> > > + "type %d info: exp %d != got %u\n",
> > > + i, expect_type->info, test_type->info)) {
> >
> > btf_kind() returns part of ->info, so we only need the second check, no?
>
> technically yes, but when kind mismatches, figuring that out from raw
> info field is quite painful, so having a better, more targeted check
> is still good.
Fair enough. We can have a more clear check.
Thanks,
Song
