On Tue, 10 Sept 2024 at 12:35, I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Mending test for list_cut_position*() for the missing check of integer > "i" after the second loop. The variable should be checked for second > time to make sure both lists after the cut operation are formed as > expected. > > Signed-off-by: I Hsin Cheng <richard120310@xxxxxxxxx> > --- Alas, this breaks the list test, as we're comparing the entries we get from list_for_each() with entries[i], so changing the value of 'i' will compare against the wrong elements. You could either update the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ at the bottom to verify the _total_ number of elements (which should be fine, as we already verify the value of i after the first loop), or compare each entry against, e.g., &entries[2 + i]. This is causing a test failure on -next: https://lore.kernel.org/all/202409161554.6c3e8d5d-oliver.sang@xxxxxxxxx/ Could we remove this from mm-nonmm pending a fix? Cheers, -- David > lib/list-test.c | 6 ++++++ > 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/lib/list-test.c b/lib/list-test.c > index 37cbc33e9fdb..8d1d47a9fe9e 100644 > --- a/lib/list-test.c > +++ b/lib/list-test.c > @@ -404,10 +404,13 @@ static void list_test_list_cut_position(struct kunit *test) > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 2); > > + i = 0; > list_for_each(cur, &list1) { > KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, cur, &entries[i]); Either change this to &entries[2 + i], or... > i++; > } > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 1); This to expect i == 3 > } > > static void list_test_list_cut_before(struct kunit *test) > @@ -432,10 +435,13 @@ static void list_test_list_cut_before(struct kunit *test) > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 1); > > + i = 0; > list_for_each(cur, &list1) { > KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, cur, &entries[i]); Either change this to &entries[1 + i], or... > i++; > } > + > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 2); This to expect i == 3. > } > > static void list_test_list_splice(struct kunit *test) > -- > 2.43.0 >
Attachment:
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
