From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Stephen Boyd Subject: Re: [PATCH v12 10/18] kunit: test: add tests for kunit test abort Date: Mon, 12 Aug 2019 22:57:06 -0700 Message-ID: <20190813055707.8B2BB206C2@mail.kernel.org> References: <20190812182421.141150-1-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190812182421.141150-11-brendanhiggins@google.com> <20190813042455.4A04320644@mail.kernel.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org To: Brendan Higgins Cc: Frank Rowand , Greg KH , Josh Poimboeuf , Kees Cook , Kieran Bingham , Luis Chamberlain , Peter Zijlstra , Rob Herring , shuah , Theodore Ts'o , Masahiro Yamada , devicetree , dri-devel , kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kbuild , Linux Kernel Mailing List , open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK List-Id: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 22:06:04) > On Mon, Aug 12, 2019 at 9:24 PM Stephen Boyd wrote: > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-08-12 11:24:13) > > > + > > > +static int kunit_try_catch_test_init(struct kunit *test) > > > +{ > > > + struct kunit_try_catch_test_context *ctx; > > > + > > > + ctx =3D kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(*ctx), GFP_KERNEL); > > > > Can this fail? Should return -ENOMEM in that case? >=20 > Yes, I should do that. Looks like it's asserted to not be an error. If it's pushed into the API then there's nothing to do here, and you can have my reviewed-by on this patch. Reviewed-by: Stephen Boyd