[<prev] [next>] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20211118065723.2808020-1-jk@codeconstruct.com.au>
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2021 14:57:23 +0800
From: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...econstruct.com.au>
To: netdev@...r.kernel.org
Cc: Matt Johnston <matt@...econstruct.com.au>,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>,
Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>
Subject: [PATCH net-next] mctp/test: Update refcount checking in route fragment tests
In 99ce45d5e, we moved a route refcount decrement from
mctp_do_fragment_route into the caller. This invalidates the assumption
that the route test makes about refcount behaviour, so the route tests
fail.
This change fixes the test case to suit the new refcount behaviour.
Fixes: 99ce45d5e7db ("mctp: Implement extended addressing")
Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...econstruct.com.au>
---
net/mctp/test/route-test.c | 5 -----
1 file changed, 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/net/mctp/test/route-test.c b/net/mctp/test/route-test.c
index 36fac3daf86a..86ad15abf897 100644
--- a/net/mctp/test/route-test.c
+++ b/net/mctp/test/route-test.c
@@ -150,11 +150,6 @@ static void mctp_test_fragment(struct kunit *test)
rt = mctp_test_create_route(&init_net, NULL, 10, mtu);
KUNIT_ASSERT_TRUE(test, rt);
- /* The refcount would usually be incremented as part of a route lookup,
- * but we're setting the route directly here.
- */
- refcount_inc(&rt->rt.refs);
-
rc = mctp_do_fragment_route(&rt->rt, skb, mtu, MCTP_TAG_OWNER);
KUNIT_EXPECT_FALSE(test, rc);
--
2.30.2
Powered by blists - more mailing lists