On Friday, 14 March 2025 05:14:30 CDT Su Hui wrote: > On 2025/3/14 17:21, Dan Carpenter wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 03:14:51PM +0800, Su Hui wrote: > >> When 'manual=false' and 'signaled=true', then expected value when using > >> NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_EVENT should be greater than zero. Fix this typo error. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Su Hui<su...@nfschina.com> > >> --- > >> tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c | 2 +- > >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c > >> b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c > >> index 3aad311574c4..bfb6fad653d0 100644 > >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c > >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c > >> @@ -968,7 +968,7 @@ TEST(wake_all) > >> auto_event_args.manual = false; > >> auto_event_args.signaled = true; > >> objs[3] = ioctl(fd, NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_EVENT, &auto_event_args); > >> - EXPECT_EQ(0, objs[3]); > >> + EXPECT_LE(0, objs[3]); > > It's kind of weird how these macros put the constant on the left. > > It returns an "fd" on success. So this look reasonable. It probably > > won't return the zero fd so we could probably check EXPECT_LT()? > Agreed, there are about 29 items that can be changed to EXPECT_LT(). > I can send a v2 patchset with this change if there is no more other > suggestions.
I personally think it looks wrong to use EXPECT_LT(), but I'll certainly defer to a higher maintainer on this point.
