linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] rust: macros: add macro to easily run KUnit tests

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 for Android: free password hash cracker in your pocket

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

Message-ID: <ZyVtcXTW99YpUF0o@Boquns-Mac-mini.local>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2024 17:08:17 -0700
From: Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com>
To: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
Cc: David Gow <davidgow@...gle.com>, Miguel Ojeda <ojeda@...nel.org>,
	José Expósito <jose.exposito89@...il.com>,
	Brendan Higgins <brendan.higgins@...ux.dev>,
	Rae Moar <rmoar@...gle.com>, Alex Gaynor <alex.gaynor@...il.com>,
	Gary Guo <gary@...yguo.net>, Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>,
	Björn Roy Baron <bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com>,
	Alice Ryhl <aliceryhl@...gle.com>,
	Matt Gilbride <mattgilbride@...gle.com>, kunit-dev@...glegroups.com,
	linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org, rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 2/3] rust: macros: add macro to easily run KUnit tests

On Fri, Nov 01, 2024 at 11:12:06PM +0100, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 1, 2024 at 10:38 PM Boqun Feng <boqun.feng@...il.com> wrote:
> >
> > but this lint doesn't make sense to me, I would say we just drop this
> > lint?
> 
> I am not sure if it is intended to fire there (i.e. to resolve
> constants), but seems OK since it is not something one would want
> normally to write except in exceptional cases.
> 

Hmm.. so I think clippy won't warn for a normal Rust #[test] function:

	https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/7811

but since in this patch #[test] is handled by us instead of by "rustc
--test" (I assume this is how Rust std handle #[cfg(test)] and
#[test]?), clippy doesn't know.

> So we could drop it globally, but if it is just this case that we
> expect, then I think it is better to just `#[expect(...)]` it (or
> perhaps use a different example) and then, if we see in the future
> that we have quite a few "trivial" comparisons like this, then we can
> drop it globally.
> 

It seems to me that clippy agrees not triggering this in test code at
least.

Regards,
Boqun

> Cheers,
> Miguel