On Saturday, 15 March 2025 04:39:46 CDT Dan Carpenter wrote: > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 05:13:50PM -0500, Elizabeth Figura wrote: > > On Friday, 14 March 2025 05:14:30 CDT Su Hui wrote: > > > On 2025/3/14 17:21, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 03:14:51PM +0800, Su Hui wrote: > > > >> When 'manual=false' and 'signaled=true', then expected value when using > > > >> NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_EVENT should be greater than zero. Fix this typo error. > > > >> > > > >> Signed-off-by: Su Hui<suhui@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > >> --- > > > >> tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c | 2 +- > > > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > > >> > > > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c > > > >> index 3aad311574c4..bfb6fad653d0 100644 > > > >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c > > > >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c > > > >> @@ -968,7 +968,7 @@ TEST(wake_all) > > > >> auto_event_args.manual = false; > > > >> auto_event_args.signaled = true; > > > >> objs[3] = ioctl(fd, NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_EVENT, &auto_event_args); > > > >> - EXPECT_EQ(0, objs[3]); > > > >> + EXPECT_LE(0, objs[3]); > > > > It's kind of weird how these macros put the constant on the left. > > > > It returns an "fd" on success. So this look reasonable. It probably > > > > won't return the zero fd so we could probably check EXPECT_LT()? > > > Agreed, there are about 29 items that can be changed to EXPECT_LT(). > > > I can send a v2 patchset with this change if there is no more other > > > suggestions. > > > > I personally think it looks wrong to use EXPECT_LT(), but I'll certainly > > defer to a higher maintainer on this point. > > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you saying that we > should allow zero as an expected file descriptor here? I don't have > strong feelings about that either way. Yes, my apologies for the ambiguous wording. That is, EXPECT_LE looks more correct to me than EXPECT_LT per se. > Putting variables on the right, Yoda speak is. Unnatural is. Yes, I certainly agree with this. I wrote it this way in the first place because I was following some other example, I forget which. > I did a git grep and the KUNIT_EXPECT_LT() just calls the parameters > left and right instead of "expected" and "seen". Expected is wrong > for LT because we expect it to be != to the expected value. It's > the opposite. We're expecting the unexpected! It would be better > to just call them left and right. > > regards, > dan carpenter >
