On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 12:00 PM Maíra Canal <mairacanal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I don't know how we make a maximally fool-proof version of this macro :\ > > This is a hard one also. I believe that use KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test, > expected, expected, sizeof(expected)); is more compliant to the > memcpy/memset/memcmp signature. Moreover, this problem also occur for > the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(expected, expected, sizeof(expected)), 0); > > I believe that the number of array elements will make it easier for > users to avoid mistakes. Actually, another idea: perhaps KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ? I think that might be clearer in terms of the semantics and people could more easily infer the right unit (bytes). Daniel
