Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests: ntsync: fix the wrong condition in wake_all

[Elizabeth Figura <zfigura@codeweavers.com>]

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@nfschina.com>
> >> ---
> >>   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.