On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 12:54 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-02-14 13:37:22)
> > diff --git a/kunit/test-test.c b/kunit/test-test.c
> > index 0b4ad6690310d..bb34431398526 100644
> > --- a/kunit/test-test.c
> > +++ b/kunit/test-test.c
> [...]
> > +
> > +#define KUNIT_RESOURCE_NUM 5
> > +static void kunit_resource_test_cleanup_resources(struct kunit *test)
> > +{
> > + int i;
> > + struct kunit_test_resource_context *ctx = test->priv;
> > + struct kunit_resource *resources[KUNIT_RESOURCE_NUM];
> > +
> > + for (i = 0; i < KUNIT_RESOURCE_NUM; i++) {
>
> Nitpick: This could use ARRAY_SIZE(resources) and then the #define could
> be dropped.
Noted. Will fix in next revision.
>
> > + resources[i] = kunit_alloc_resource(&ctx->test,
> > + fake_resource_init,
> > + fake_resource_free,
> > + ctx);
> > + }
> > +
> > + kunit_cleanup(&ctx->test);
> > +
> > + KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_empty(&ctx->test.resources));
> > +}
> > +
> [...]
> > +
> > +static struct kunit_case kunit_resource_test_cases[] = {
>
> Can these arrays be const?
There is some private mutable state inside of `struct kunit_case` that
would be kind of annoying to pull out; I don't think it would make it
cleaner.
