[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <7faac99b-8bb9-4015-9b64-789587542d20@kili.mountain>
Date: Wed, 31 May 2023 10:50:59 +0300
From: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
To: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Cc: Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@...uxfoundation.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>,
Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@...gle.com>,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] kunit: Move kunit_abort() call out of
kunit_do_failed_assertion()
On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 01:21:57PM +0800, David Gow 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.
>
> In addition, kunit_abort() and kunit_do_failed_assertion() are renamed
> to make it clear they they're intended for internal KUnit use, to:
> __kunit_do_failed_assertion() and __kunit_abort()
>
> Suggested-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...aro.org>
> Signed-off-by: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>
Fantastic! Thanks so much!
regards,
dan carpenter
Powered by blists - more mailing lists