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

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

[Su Hui]

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]);
 
 	wait_args.timeout = get_abs_timeout(1000);
 	wait_args.objs = (uintptr_t)objs;
-- 
2.30.2

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

[Dan Carpenter]

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()?

regards,
dan carpenter

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

[Su Hui]

On 2025/3/14 18:14, 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.

Sorry for the wrong style of email:(.

Su Hui

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

[Elizabeth Figura]

On Friday, 14 March 2025 02:14:51 CDT 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]);
>  
>  	wait_args.timeout = get_abs_timeout(1000);
>  	wait_args.objs = (uintptr_t)objs;
> 

Reviewed-by: Elizabeth Figura <zfigura@codeweavers.com>

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

[Elizabeth Figura]

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.

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

[Dan Carpenter]

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@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.

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.

Putting variables on the right, Yoda speak is.  Unnatural is.

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

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

[Elizabeth Figura]

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@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.
> 
> 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
> 

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

[Su Hui]

On 2025/3/16 04:29, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
> 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@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.
>> 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.

Got it, I think there is no need for v2 patch that using EXPECT_LT(). 
Thanks for your feedback.

Su Hui