On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 10:30 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 22:02:59) > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:56 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 17:41:05) > > > > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 4:59 PM Stephen Boyd <sboyd@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > kunit_resource_destroy (respective equivalents to devm_kfree, and > > > > > > devres_destroy) and use kunit_kfree here? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes, or drop the API entirely? Does anything need this functionality? > > > > > > > > Drop the kunit_resource API? I would strongly prefer not to. > > > > > > No. I mean this API, string_stream_clear(). Does anything use it? > > > > Oh, right. No. > > > > However, now that I added the kunit_resource_destroy, I thought it > > might be good to free the string_stream after I use it in each call to > > kunit_assert->format(...) in which case I will be using this logic. > > > > So I think the right thing to do is to expose string_stream_destroy so > > kunit_do_assert can clean up when it's done, and then demote > > string_stream_clear to static. Sound good? > > Ok, sure. I don't really see how clearing it explicitly when the > assertion prints vs. never allocating it to begin with is really any > different. Maybe I've missed something though. It's for the case that we *do* print something out. Once we are doing printing, we don't want the fragments anymore.
