On Mon, Apr 3, 2023 at 12:31 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 6:21 PM 'Daniel Latypov' via KUnit Development > <kunit-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > I've got a few minor comments below, but this otherwise looks good. > > I like the idea of testing knuit_fail_current_test(). > > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 3:05 PM Rae Moar <rmoar@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > +static void kunit_current_kunit_test_field(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + struct kunit *current_test; > > > + > > > + /* Check to ensure the result of current->kunit_test > > > + * is equivalent to current test. > > > + */ > > > + current_test = current->kunit_test; > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current_test); > > > > Perhaps we can combine this and the next test case down to > > static void kunit_current_test(struct kunit *test) { > > /* There are two different ways of getting the current test */ > > KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, current->kunit_test); > > KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, test, kunit_get_current_test()); > > } > > ? > > Hi Daniel! > > Yes, I would be happy to combine these for v2. I might want to alter > that proposed comment slightly. "Two different ways" seems a bit > unclear to me. Maybe: Check results of both current->kunit_test and > kunit_get_current_test() are equivalent to current test. What do you > think? I might send out a v2 with a proposed comment. What you went with in v2 works for me. I'll take a look at the other changes in v2. Thanks! Daniel