Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [PATCH v13 00/18] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework | From | shuah <> | Date | Tue, 20 Aug 2019 13:08:28 -0600 |
| |
On 8/20/19 12:24 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:24:45AM -0600, shuah wrote: >> On 8/13/19 11:50 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: >>> ## TL;DR >>> >>> This revision addresses comments from Stephen and Bjorn Helgaas. Most >>> changes are pretty minor stuff that doesn't affect the API in anyway. >>> One significant change, however, is that I added support for freeing >>> kunit_resource managed resources before the test case is finished via >>> kunit_resource_destroy(). Additionally, Bjorn pointed out that I broke >>> KUnit on certain configurations (like the default one for x86, whoops). >>> >>> Based on Stephen's feedback on the previous change, I think we are >>> pretty close. I am not expecting any significant changes from here on >>> out. >>> >> >> Hi Brendan, >> >> I found checkpatch errors in one or two patches. Can you fix those and >> send v14. > > Hi Shuah, > > Are you refering to the following errors? > > ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses > #144: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:456: > +#define KUNIT_BINARY_CLASS \ > + kunit_binary_assert, KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT > > ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses > #146: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:458: > +#define KUNIT_BINARY_PTR_CLASS \ > + kunit_binary_ptr_assert, KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_PTR_ASSERT_STRUCT > > These values should *not* be in parentheses. I am guessing checkpatch is > getting confused and thinks that these are complex expressions, when > they are not. > > I ignored the errors since I figured checkpatch was complaining > erroneously. > > I could refactor the code to remove these macros entirely, but I think > the code is cleaner with them. >
Please do. I am not veru sure what value these macros add.
thanks, -- Shuah
| |