On Sat, 23 Sept 2023 at 08:54, Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > To avoid the failure of alloc, we could check the return value of > kmalloc() and kzalloc(). > > Signed-off-by: Ma Ke <make_ruc2021@xxxxxxx> > --- Thanks very much. This looks good to me. We could change the rest of the allocations to also use kunit_kzalloc(), but equally that can be left to another patch. Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@xxxxxxxxxx> Cheers, -- David > lib/list-test.c | 5 +++-- > 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/list-test.c b/lib/list-test.c > index 0cc27de9cec8..a0b478042477 100644 > --- a/lib/list-test.c > +++ b/lib/list-test.c > @@ -26,10 +26,12 @@ static void list_test_list_init(struct kunit *test) > > INIT_LIST_HEAD(&list2); > > - list4 = kzalloc(sizeof(*list4), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL); > + list4 = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*list4), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, list4); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(list4); > > list5 = kmalloc(sizeof(*list5), GFP_KERNEL | __GFP_NOFAIL); > + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, list5); > memset(list5, 0xFF, sizeof(*list5)); > INIT_LIST_HEAD(list5); > > @@ -40,7 +42,6 @@ static void list_test_list_init(struct kunit *test) > KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_empty_careful(list4)); > KUNIT_EXPECT_TRUE(test, list_empty_careful(list5)); > > - kfree(list4); > kfree(list5); > } > > -- > 2.37.2 >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
