On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 at 04:20, Yury Norov wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:35:48AM -0800, John Hubbard wrote:
> > On 2/9/25 11:54 PM, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Sat, 8 Feb 2025 at 18:53, Yury Norov wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 07, 2025 at 03:14:01PM -0500, Tamir Duberstein wrote:
> > >
up: the static global 'kunittest' was annoying me.
I think there's an argument to get rid of tc_err() entirely, and just
use KUNIT_FAIL directly, but I'm happy either way: it is a lot of
churn.
Reviewed-by: David Gow
Thank
t; Signed-off-by: Tamir Duberstein
> ---
Thanks very much for picking this up.
Personally, I'm very much in favour of this, particularly once the
refactor in the next patch lands.
Reviewed-by: David Gow
Cheers,
-- David
> MAINTAINERS | 2 +-
> arch/
---
Makes sense.
Reviewed-by: David Gow
Cheers,
-- David
> lib/test_bitmap.c | 28
> 1 file changed, 28 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/test_bitmap.c b/lib/test_bitmap.c
> index 65a75d58ed9e..c83829ef557f 100644
> --- a/lib/test_bitma
nt to check a subsystem on a running kernel", but I find
> no evidence that bitmap in particular is actually testing the running
> kernel; it is a unit test of the bitmap functions, which is also stated
> in the config help text.
Again, I think the only issue here is the CONFIG_
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:
> -
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 / plat
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 gener
7; [-Werror=missing-prototypes]
> 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
10 matches
Mail list logo
