On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 02:55, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> The kunit_device_register() function doesn't return NULL, it returns
> error pointers. Change the KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() to check for
> ERR_OR_NULL().
>
> Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@xxxxxxxxxx>
> ---
Nice catch, thanks!
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx>
> It's a pity that there isn't a KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_PTR() macro...
I think we'll add one, but I'm not yet totally convinced that it would
be better than using ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL() in cases like this,
where we're:
1. In a test; and,
2. using the pointer afterwards, expecting it to be valid
(dereferencing it and/or passing it to functions which will)
This is largely because it'd be nicer, if the pointer is NULL (due to
a bug), to get a more explicit assertion failure, rather than a crash.
It does make the test code less indicative of how the APIs are meant
to be used elsewhere, though, and annoys the static analysis, though.
Thoughts?
-- David
> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> index c4259d910356..f7980ef236a3 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> @@ -720,7 +720,7 @@ static void kunit_device_cleanup_test(struct kunit *test)
> long action_was_run = 0;
>
> test_device = kunit_device_register(test, "my_device");
> - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, test_device);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test_device);
>
> /* Add an action to verify cleanup. */
> devm_add_action(test_device, test_dev_action, &action_was_run);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
