On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 8:56 AM Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hi Daniel, > > On Wed, May 25, 2022 at 5:44 PM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > Note: this does change the function signature of > > kunit_do_failed_assertion, so we'd need to update the rust wrapper in https://github.com/Rust-for-Linux/linux/blob/rust/rust/kernel/kunit.rs > > But otherwise, I don't think this series changes anything on the > > rust-side. > > Thanks for the heads up! I can take care of that. FYI This probably won't need to happen soon. I'd mentioned the idea of patch #1, which changes kunit_do_failed_assertion(), and Brendan didn't seem keen on it before. But the diff should be simple, e.g. just something like this: @@ -38,9 +38,7 @@ }); static CONDITION: &'static $crate::str::CStr = $crate::c_str!(stringify!($cond)); static ASSERTION: UnaryAssert = UnaryAssert($crate::bindings::kunit_unary_assert { - assert: $crate::bindings::kunit_assert { - format: Some($crate::bindings::kunit_unary_assert_format), - }, + assert: $crate::bindings::kunit_assert {}, condition: CONDITION.as_char_ptr(), expected_true: true, }); @@ -67,6 +65,7 @@ core::ptr::addr_of!(LOCATION.0), $crate::bindings::kunit_assert_type_KUNIT_ASSERTION, core::ptr::addr_of!(ASSERTION.0.assert), + Some($crate::bindings::kunit_unary_assert_format), core::ptr::null(), ); } The only tricky bit will be coordinating the changes :) Daniel
