Re: [PATCH v13 00/18] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework

shuah
2019-08-20T19:09:50Z

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
_______________________________________________
Linux-nvdimm mailing list
Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org