[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxp3vNeUdFEpTZdD_kazhc+YJ_EumyPTFEwxgkOP4RPn9Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2023 10:26:00 -0700
From: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH] kunit: Move kunit_abort() call out of kunit_do_failed_assertion()
On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 12:54 AM David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com> wrote:
>
> KUnit aborts the current thread when an assertion fails. Currently, this
> is done conditionally as part of the kunit_do_failed_assertion()
> function, but this hides the kunit_abort() call from the compiler
> (particularly if it's in another module). This, in turn, can lead to
> both suboptimal code generation (the compiler can't know if
> kunit_do_failed_assertion() will return), and to static analysis tools
> like smatch giving false positives.
>
> Moving the kunit_abort() call into the macro should give the compiler
> and tools a better chance at understanding what's going on. Doing so
> requires exporting kunit_abort(), though it's recommended to continue to
> use assertions in lieu of aborting directly.
Should we rename it to __kunit_abort() to discourage that?
That would match what we do with __kunit_test_suites_init().
Daniel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists