[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CABVgOSk1fz+KaGyKZ_4kQdAZgUpyXUnqdx0364aHEc3JemhGyg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:37:33 +0800
From: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
To: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Cc: brendanhiggins@...gle.com, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kunit: consolidate KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT macros
On Thu, Jan 27, 2022 at 11:36 AM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jan 26, 2022 at 5:00 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > We currently have 2 other versions of KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT.
> > The only differences are that
> > * the format funcition they pass is different
> Minor nit: s/funcition/function/
> > * the types of left_val/right_val should be different (integral,
> > pointer, string).
> >
> > The latter doesn't actually matter since these macros are just plumbing
> > them along to KUNIT_ASSERTION where they will get type checked.
> >
> > So combine them all into a single KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT that
> > now also takes the format function as a parameter.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
> > ---
>
> Makes sense to me.
>
> One minor spelling nit: probably not worth a whole new version over,
> but if v2 ever happens, worth fixing at the same time...
>
Oops, forgot to add the Reviewed-by!
Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
> -- David
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists