On Fri, Jun 07, 2019 at 12:00:47PM -0700, Stephen Boyd wrote: > Quoting Iurii Zaikin (2019-06-05 18:29:42) > > On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 11:22 AM Stephen Boyd <sb...@kernel.org> wrote: > > > > > > Quoting Brendan Higgins (2019-05-14 15:17:10) > > > > diff --git a/kernel/sysctl-test.c b/kernel/sysctl-test.c > > > > new file mode 100644 > > > > index 0000000000000..fe0f2bae66085 > > > > --- /dev/null > > > > +++ b/kernel/sysctl-test.c > > > > + > > > > + > > > > +static void sysctl_test_dointvec_happy_single_negative(struct kunit > > > > *test) > > > > +{ > > > > + struct ctl_table table = { > > > > + .procname = "foo", > > > > + .data = &test_data.int_0001, > > > > + .maxlen = sizeof(int), > > > > + .mode = 0644, > > > > + .proc_handler = proc_dointvec, > > > > + .extra1 = &i_zero, > > > > + .extra2 = &i_one_hundred, > > > > + }; > > > > + char input[] = "-9"; > > > > + size_t len = sizeof(input) - 1; > > > > + loff_t pos = 0; > > > > + > > > > + table.data = kunit_kzalloc(test, sizeof(int), GFP_USER); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, 1, input, &len, > > > > &pos)); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, len); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, pos); > > > > + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -9, *(int *)table.data); > > > > > > Is the casting necessary? Or can the macro do a type coercion of the > > > second parameter based on the first type? > > Data field is defined as void* so I believe casting is necessary to > > dereference it as a pointer to an array of ints. I don't think the > > macro should do any type coercion that == operator wouldn't do. > > I did change the cast to make it more clear that it's a pointer to an > > array of ints being dereferenced. > > Ok, I still wonder if we should make KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ check the types on > both sides and cause a build warning/error if the types aren't the same. > This would be similar to our min/max macros that complain about > mismatched types in the comparisons. Then if a test developer needs to > convert one type or the other they could do so with a > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ_T() macro that lists the types to coerce both sides to > explicitly.
Do you think it would be better to do a phony compare similar to how min/max used to work prior to 4.17, or to use the new __typecheck(...) macro? This might seem like a dumb question (and maybe it is), but Iurii and I thought the former created an error message that was a bit easier to understand, whereas __typecheck is obviously superior in terms of code reuse. This is what we are thinking right now; if you don't have any complaints I will squash it into the relevant commits on the next revision: --- From: Iurii Zaikin <yzai...@google.com> Adds a warning message when comparing values of different types similar to what min() / max() macros do. Signed-off-by: Iurii Zaikin <yzai...@google.com> --- include/kunit/test.h | 15 +++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 15 insertions(+) diff --git a/include/kunit/test.h b/include/kunit/test.h index 511c9e85401a6..791e22fba5620 100644 --- a/include/kunit/test.h +++ b/include/kunit/test.h @@ -335,6 +335,13 @@ void __printf(3, 4) kunit_printk(const char *level, #define kunit_err(test, fmt, ...) \ kunit_printk(KERN_ERR, test, fmt, ##__VA_ARGS__) +/* + * 'Unnecessary' cast serves to generate a compile-time warning in case + * of comparing incompatible types. Inspired by include/linux/kernel.h + */ +#define __kunit_typecheck(lhs, rhs) \ + ((void) (&(lhs) == &(rhs))) + static inline struct kunit_stream *kunit_expect_start(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const char *line) @@ -514,6 +521,7 @@ static inline void kunit_expect_ptr_binary(struct kunit *test, #define KUNIT_EXPECT_BINARY(test, left, condition, right) do { \ typeof(left) __left = (left); \ typeof(right) __right = (right); \ + __kunit_typecheck(__left, __right); \ kunit_expect_binary(test, \ (long long) __left, #left, \ (long long) __right, #right, \ @@ -524,6 +532,7 @@ static inline void kunit_expect_ptr_binary(struct kunit *test, #define KUNIT_EXPECT_BINARY_MSG(test, left, condition, right, fmt, ...) do { \ typeof(left) __left = (left); \ typeof(right) __right = (right); \ + __kunit_typecheck(__left, __right); \ kunit_expect_binary_msg(test, \ (long long) __left, #left, \ (long long) __right, #right, \ @@ -538,6 +547,7 @@ static inline void kunit_expect_ptr_binary(struct kunit *test, #define KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_BINARY(test, left, condition, right) do { \ typeof(left) __left = (left); \ typeof(right) __right = (right); \ + __kunit_typecheck(__left, __right); \ kunit_expect_ptr_binary(test, \ (void *) __left, #left, \ (void *) __right, #right, \ @@ -553,6 +563,7 @@ static inline void kunit_expect_ptr_binary(struct kunit *test, ...) do { \ typeof(left) __left = (left); \ typeof(right) __right = (right); \ + __kunit_typecheck(__left, __right); \ kunit_expect_ptr_binary_msg(test, \ (void *) __left, #left, \ (void *) __right, #right, \ @@ -1013,6 +1024,7 @@ static inline void kunit_assert_ptr_binary(struct kunit *test, #define KUNIT_ASSERT_BINARY(test, left, condition, right) do { \ typeof(left) __left = (left); \ typeof(right) __right = (right); \ + __kunit_typecheck(__left, __right); \ kunit_assert_binary(test, \ (long long) __left, #left, \ (long long) __right, #right, \ @@ -1023,6 +1035,7 @@ static inline void kunit_assert_ptr_binary(struct kunit *test, #define KUNIT_ASSERT_BINARY_MSG(test, left, condition, right, fmt, ...) do { \ typeof(left) __left = (left); \ typeof(right) __right = (right); \ + __kunit_typecheck(__left, __right); \ kunit_assert_binary_msg(test, \ (long long) __left, #left, \ (long long) __right, #right, \ @@ -1037,6 +1050,7 @@ static inline void kunit_assert_ptr_binary(struct kunit *test, #define KUNIT_ASSERT_PTR_BINARY(test, left, condition, right) do { \ typeof(left) __left = (left); \ typeof(right) __right = (right); \ + __kunit_typecheck(__left, __right); \ kunit_assert_ptr_binary(test, \ (void *) __left, #left, \ (void *) __right, #right, \ @@ -1051,6 +1065,7 @@ static inline void kunit_assert_ptr_binary(struct kunit *test, fmt, ...) do { \ typeof(left) __left = (left); \ typeof(right) __right = (right); \ + __kunit_typecheck(__left, __right); \ kunit_assert_ptr_binary_msg(test, \ (void *) __left, #left, \ (void *) __right, #right, \ -- 2.22.0.rc2.383.gf4fbbf30c2-goog _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm