[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxqkFTn+1EtPt_tQjAJszocTv97aTcimVdo_QzCMOqDOZg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2022 10:22:22 -0700
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To: Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] kunit: fix assert_type for comparison macros
On Sun, Aug 21, 2022 at 8:02 AM Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net> wrote:
>
> When replacing KUNIT_BINARY_*_MSG_ASSERTION() macros with
> KUNIT_BINARY_INT_ASSERTION(), the assert_type parameter was not always
> correctly transferred. Specifically, the following errors were
> introduced:
> - KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG() uses KUNIT_ASSERTION
> - KUNIT_ASSERT_LT_MSG() uses KUNIT_EXPECTATION
> - KUNIT_ASSERT_GT_MSG() uses KUNIT_EXPECTATION
>
> A failing KUNIT_EXPECT_LE_MSG() test thus prevents further tests from
> running, while failing KUNIT_ASSERT_{LT,GT}_MSG() tests do not prevent
> further tests from running. This is contrary to the documentation,
> which states that failing KUNIT_EXPECT_* macros allow further tests to
> run, while failing KUNIT_ASSERT_* macros should prevent this.
>
> Revert the KUNIT_{ASSERTION,EXPECTATION} switches to fix the behaviour
> for the affected macros.
>
> Fixes: 40f39777ce4f ("kunit: decrease macro layering for integer asserts")
> Signed-off-by: Sander Vanheule <sander@...nheule.net>
Thanks for catching this!
I scanned over the file again looking for other errors. I think this
patch fixes all of them.
Reviewed-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists