On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:55 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:14) > > Add support for assertions which are like expectations except the test > > terminates if the assertion is not satisfied. > > > > The idea with assertions is that you use them to state all the > > preconditions for your test. Logically speaking, these are the premises > > of the test case, so if a premise isn't true, there is no point in > > continuing the test case because there are no conclusions that can be > > drawn without the premises. Whereas, the expectation is the thing you > > are trying to prove. It is not used universally in x-unit style test > > frameworks, but I really like it as a convention. You could still > > express the idea of a premise using the above idiom, but I think > > KUNIT_ASSERT_* states the intended idea perfectly. > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Logan Gunthorpe <logang@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > + * Sets an expectation that the values that @left and @right evaluate to are > > + * not equal. This is semantically equivalent to > > + * KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(@test, strcmp((@left), (@right))). See KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE() > > + * for more information. > > + */ > > +#define KUNIT_ASSERT_STRNEQ(test, left, right) \ > > + KUNIT_BINARY_STR_NE_ASSERTION(test, \ > > + KUNIT_ASSERTION, \ > > + left, \ > > + right) > > + > > +#define KUNIT_ASSERT_STRNEQ_MSG(test, left, right, fmt, ...) \ > > + KUNIT_BINARY_STR_NE_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \ > > + KUNIT_ASSERTION, \ > > + left, \ > > + right, \ > > + fmt, \ > > Same question about tabbing too. Yep. WIll fix. > > diff --git a/kunit/test-test.c b/kunit/test-test.c > > index 88f4cdf03db2a..058f3fb37458a 100644 > > --- a/kunit/test-test.c > > +++ b/kunit/test-test.c > > @@ -78,11 +78,13 @@ static int kunit_try_catch_test_init(struct kunit *test) > > struct kunit_try_catch_test_context *ctx; > > > > ctx = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx); > > Ah ok. Question still stands if kunit_kzalloc() should just have the > assertion on failure. Right. In the previous patch KUNIT_ASSERT_* doesn't exist yet, so I can't use it. And rather than fall back to return -ENOMEM like I should have, I evidently forgot to do that. > > test->priv = ctx; > > > > ctx->try_catch = kunit_kmalloc(test, > > sizeof(*ctx->try_catch), > > GFP_KERNEL); > > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, ctx->try_catch); > > _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel
