On Fri 2025-02-14 11:20:00, Tamir Duberstein wrote: > Convert the scanf() self-test to a KUnit test. > > In the interest of keeping the patch reasonably-sized this doesn't > refactor the tests into proper parameterized tests - it's all one big > test case. > > --- a/lib/test_scanf.c > +++ b/lib/tests/scanf_kunit.c > @@ -15,48 +13,35 @@ > #include <linux/slab.h> > #include <linux/string.h> > > -#include "../tools/testing/selftests/kselftest_module.h" > - > #define BUF_SIZE 1024 > > -KSTM_MODULE_GLOBALS(); > -static char *test_buffer __initdata; > -static char *fmt_buffer __initdata; > -static struct rnd_state rnd_state __initdata; > +static char *test_buffer; > +static char *fmt_buffer; > +static struct rnd_state rnd_state; > > -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); > +typedef void (*check_fn)(struct kunit *test, 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(6, 0) __init > -_test(const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, const void *check_data, > const char *string, > - const char *fmt, int n_args, ...) > +static void __scanf(7, 0)
This should be: static void __scanf(7, 9) Otherwise, the compilation with W=1 produces the warning reported by the l...@intel.com kernel test robot, see https://lore.kernel.org/r/202502160245.kurrybjr-...@intel.com > +_test(struct kunit *test, const char *file, const int line, check_fn fn, > const void *check_data, > + const char *string, const char *fmt, int n_args, ...) > { > va_list ap, ap_copy; > int ret; Otherwise, it looks good to me. With the above fix: Reviewed-by: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> Tested-by: Petr Mladek <pmla...@suse.com> Best Regards, Petr
