On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:24:45AM -0600, shuah wrote: > On 8/13/19 11:50 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > ## TL;DR > > > > This revision addresses comments from Stephen and Bjorn Helgaas. Most > > changes are pretty minor stuff that doesn't affect the API in anyway. > > One significant change, however, is that I added support for freeing > > kunit_resource managed resources before the test case is finished via > > kunit_resource_destroy(). Additionally, Bjorn pointed out that I broke > > KUnit on certain configurations (like the default one for x86, whoops). > > > > Based on Stephen's feedback on the previous change, I think we are > > pretty close. I am not expecting any significant changes from here on > > out. > > > > Hi Brendan, > > I found checkpatch errors in one or two patches. Can you fix those and > send v14. Hi Shuah, Are you refering to the following errors? ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses #144: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:456: +#define KUNIT_BINARY_CLASS \ + kunit_binary_assert, KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses #146: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:458: +#define KUNIT_BINARY_PTR_CLASS \ + kunit_binary_ptr_assert, KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_PTR_ASSERT_STRUCT These values should *not* be in parentheses. I am guessing checkpatch is getting confused and thinks that these are complex expressions, when they are not. I ignored the errors since I figured checkpatch was complaining erroneously. I could refactor the code to remove these macros entirely, but I think the code is cleaner with them. What would you prefer I do? NB: These macros are introduced in: "[PATCH v13 05/18] kunit: test: add the concept of expectations" Thanks!
