[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxrYGrvg--bmdJ8zOV8+hCcY6=OZj0FtqheNtGP81XFL6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:56:30 -0700
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net>
Cc: André Almeida <andrealmeid@...eup.net>,
melissa.srw@...il.com, daniel@...ll.ch, javierm@...hat.com,
siqueirajordao@...eup.net, Isabella Basso <isabbasso@...eup.net>,
jose.exposito89@...il.com, magalilemes00@...il.com,
tales.aparecida@...il.com, davidgow@...gle.com,
davem@...emloft.net, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, airlied@...ux.ie, kuba@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kunit: add KUnit array assertions to the example_all_expect_macros_test
On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 12:00 PM Maíra Canal <mairacanal@...eup.net> wrote:
> > I don't know how we make a maximally fool-proof version of this macro :\
>
> This is a hard one also. I believe that use KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test,
> expected, expected, sizeof(expected)); is more compliant to the
> memcpy/memset/memcmp signature. Moreover, this problem also occur for
> the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(expected, expected, sizeof(expected)), 0);
>
> I believe that the number of array elements will make it easier for
> users to avoid mistakes.
Actually, another idea: perhaps KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ?
I think that might be clearer in terms of the semantics and people
could more easily infer the right unit (bytes).
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists