On Fri 2025-02-14 11:19:58, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > This improves the failure output by pointing to the failing line at the > top level of the test. > > Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein <[email protected]> > --- > lib/test_scanf.c | 66 > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------------- > 1 file changed, 33 insertions(+), 33 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/lib/test_scanf.c b/lib/test_scanf.c > index 44f8508c9d88..d1664e0d0138 100644 > --- a/lib/test_scanf.c > +++ b/lib/test_scanf.c > @@ -24,12 +24,12 @@ static char *test_buffer __initdata; > static char *fmt_buffer __initdata; > static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata; > > -typedef int (*check_fn)(const void *check_data, const char *string, > - const char *fmt, int n_args, va_list ap); > +typedef int (*check_fn)(const char *file, const int line, const void > *check_data, > + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, > va_list ap); > > -static void __scanf(4, 6) __init > -_test(check_fn fn, const void *check_data, const char *string, const char > *fmt, > - int n_args, ...) > +static void __scanf(6, 0) __init
This should be: static void __scanf(6, 8) __init The zero (0) is used when the parameters are passed via the va_list. The value must be the position of the first parameter when they are passed via the variable list of parameters, aka (...). Otherwise, it triggers the warnings reported by the [email protected] kernel test robot, see https://lore.kernel.org/r/[email protected] Best Regards, Petr
