Re: [PATCH v13 00/18] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 2:26 PM Brendan Higgins
<brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 12:08 PM shuah <shuah@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On 8/20/19 12:24 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Please do. I am not veru sure what value these macros add.
>
> Alright, I will have something for you later today.

I just sent a new revision with the fix.

Cheers



[Index of Archives]     [Linux Wireless]     [Linux Kernel]     [ATH6KL]     [Linux Bluetooth]     [Linux Netdev]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Share Photos]     [IDE]     [Security]     [Git]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Linux ATA RAID]     [Samba]     [Device Mapper]

  Powered by Linux