hat might overcomplicate it a bit.
It also might be nice to document the individual macros with kerneldoc
comments. (Though, that could equally fit in patch #1).
Still, this is the most important bit, so I'm happy to have it as-is.
Reviewed-by: David Gow
Cheers,
-- David
> v2:
> - Rebase
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 21:19, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> Add unit tests to verify that warning backtrace suppression works.
>
> If backtrace suppression does _not_ work, the unit tests will likely
> trigger unsuppressed backtraces, which should actually help to get
> the affected architectures /
gt; architectures due to include file recursion, so use a plain integer
> for now.
>
> Acked-by: Dan Carpenter
> Reviewed-by: Kees Cook
> Tested-by: Linux Kernel Functional Testing
> Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck
> ---
Looks good to me, thanks.
Reviewed-by: David Gow
Ch
On Wed, 3 Apr 2024 at 21:19, Guenter Roeck wrote:
>
> Some unit tests intentionally trigger warning backtraces by passing
> bad parameters to API functions. Such unit tests typically check the
> return value from those calls, not the existence of the warning backtrace.
>
> Such intentionally
]
> lib/kunit/debugfs.c:118:6: error: no previous prototype for
> 'kunit_debugfs_destroy_suite' [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
>
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann
> ---
Nice catch, thanks. I'm fine with this going in via -mm, but if you'd
prefer it to go via kselftest/kunit, let me know.
