On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the > top level of the test. > > Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <tamird@xxxxxxxxx> > --- > lib/test_scanf.c | 66 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c > index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644 > --- a/lib/test_scanf.c > +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c > @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata; > static char *fmt_buffer __initdata; > static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata; > > -typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string, > - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap); > +typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void *check_data, > + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap); > > -static void __scanf(4, 6) __init > -_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char *fmt, > - int n_args, ...) > +static void __scanf(6, 0) __init This should be: static void __scanf(6, 8) __init The zero (0) is used when the parameters are passed via the va_list. The value must be the position of the first parameter when they are passed via the variable list of parameters, aka (...). Otherwise, it triggers the warnings reported by the lkp@xxxxxxxxx kernel test robot, see https://lore.kernel.org/r/202502160245.KUrryBJR-lkp@xxxxxxxxx Best Regards, Petr
