On Mon, 2020-11-02 at 13:58 -0600, Benjamin Marzinski wrote: > On Tue, Oct 27, 2020 at 11:45:35PM +0100, mwilck@xxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > check_expected(prio); > > va_start(ap, fmt); > > vsnprintf(buff, MAX_MSG_SIZE, fmt, ap); > > va_end(ap); > > - assert_string_equal(buff, mock_ptr_type(char *)); > > + expected = mock_ptr_type(char *); > > + assert_memory_equal(buff, expected, strlen(expected)); > > This looks fine. I'm just wondering the purpose. Is it just to deal > with > bad,non-null terminated strings? No. In the case at hand, the error strings returned by the C library, which are at the tail of the log message in this case, were different. We're looking at an errno==0 case, where glibc returns "Success", whereas musl returned something else (like "undefined error" or so, I forgot the exact wording). The downside of this patch is that if a mismatch occurs, assert_string_equal() prints the two different strings, whereas assert_memory_equal() prints differing offsets and values in hex, which makes it more difficult to assess the cause of the mismatch. Regards, Martin -- dm-devel mailing list dm-devel@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/dm-devel
