* [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: Remove unneeded variable
2023-06-14 8:09 ` [PATCH] selftests/nolibc: Remove unneeded variable wuyonggang001
@ 2023-06-16 6:34 ` Zhangjin Wu
0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread
From: Zhangjin Wu @ 2023-06-16 6:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: wuyonggang001; +Cc: linux-kernel, linux-kselftest, shuah, w
Hi, Yonggang
The 'ret' variable is extractly used by the macros to record the
failures, removing it would directly break the compiling.
$ gcc -o nolibc-test tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c: In function ‘run_syscall’:
tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c:285:57: error: ‘ret’ undeclared (first use in this function)
285 | do { if (!cond) pad_spc(llen, 64, "[SKIPPED]\n"); else ret += expect_sysne(expr, llen, val); } while (0)
You can re-check all of the used 'ret' like this:
$ grep "ret += expect" -ur tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
To avoid sending such patches, simple local tests are required, for this patch,
the 'libc-test' or 'nolibc-test' target may help us to find the above compile
error:
$ cd tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/
$ make libc-test
or
$ make nolibc-test
Thanks,
Zhangjin
> Fix the following coccicheck warning:
>
> tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c:646:5-8: Unneeded variable:
> "ret". Return "0"
>
> Signed-off-by: Yonggang Wu <wuyonggang001@208suo.com>
> ---
> tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c | 15 ++++++---------
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> index 486334981e60..2b723354e085 100644
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/nolibc/nolibc-test.c
> @@ -546,7 +546,6 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max)
> int proc;
> int test;
> int tmp;
> - int ret = 0;
> void *p1, *p2;
>
> /* <proc> indicates whether or not /proc is mounted */
> @@ -632,18 +631,17 @@ int run_syscall(int min, int max)
> CASE_TEST(syscall_noargs); EXPECT_SYSEQ(1,
> syscall(__NR_getpid), getpid()); break;
> CASE_TEST(syscall_args); EXPECT_SYSER(1,
> syscall(__NR_statx, 0, NULL, 0, 0, NULL), -1, EFAULT); break;
> case __LINE__:
> - return ret; /* must be last */
> + return 0; /* must be last */
> /* note: do not set any defaults so as to permit holes above */
> }
> }
> - return ret;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> int run_stdlib(int min, int max)
> {
> int test;
> int tmp;
> - int ret = 0;
> void *p1, *p2;
>
> for (test = min; test >= 0 && test <= max; test++) {
> @@ -726,11 +724,11 @@ int run_stdlib(int min, int max)
> # warning "__SIZEOF_LONG__ is undefined"
> #endif /* __SIZEOF_LONG__ */
> case __LINE__:
> - return ret; /* must be last */
> + return 0; /* must be last */
> /* note: do not set any defaults so as to permit holes above */
> }
> }
> - return ret;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> #define EXPECT_VFPRINTF(c, expected, fmt, ...) \
> @@ -790,7 +788,6 @@ static int run_vfprintf(int min, int max)
> {
> int test;
> int tmp;
> - int ret = 0;
> void *p1, *p2;
>
> for (test = min; test >= 0 && test <= max; test++) {
> @@ -810,11 +807,11 @@ static int run_vfprintf(int min, int max)
> CASE_TEST(hex); EXPECT_VFPRINTF(1, "f", "%x", 0xf);
> break;
> CASE_TEST(pointer); EXPECT_VFPRINTF(3, "0x1", "%p", (void
> *) 0x1); break;
> case __LINE__:
> - return ret; /* must be last */
> + return 0; /* must be last */
> /* note: do not set any defaults so as to permit holes above */
> }
> }
> - return ret;
> + return 0;
> }
>
> static int smash_stack(void)
>
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread