linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] kunit: eliminate KUNIT_INIT_*_ASSERT

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:   Sat, 1 Oct 2022 10:48:33 -0700
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc:     brendanhiggins@...gle.com, davidgow@...gle.com,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, skhan@...uxfoundation.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] kunit: eliminate KUNIT_INIT_*_ASSERT_STRUCT macros

On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 2:26 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com> wrote:
> >
> > But we can work around this with the following generic macro
> >   #define KUNIT_INIT_ASSERT(initializers...) { initializers }
>
> Is it intended to be internal, right? Should be prefixed by `_` then?

Yeah, 100% internal.

We don't have such a convention in KUnit yet, see the discussion in
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CABVgOSmcheQvBRKqc-0ftmbthx=EReoQ-910QV0QMNuxLWjTUQ@mail.gmail.com/T/#u
I'd be personally fine with _s, but this patch just tried to keep
things consistent with what was there before.

Daniel