[PATCH v13 00/18] kunit: introduce KUnit, the Linux kernel unit testing framework

[Brendan Higgins]

On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:24:45AM -0600, shuah wrote:
> On 8/13/19 11:50 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > ## TL;DR
> > 
> > This revision addresses comments from Stephen and Bjorn Helgaas. Most
> > changes are pretty minor stuff that doesn't affect the API in anyway.
> > One significant change, however, is that I added support for freeing
> > kunit_resource managed resources before the test case is finished via
> > kunit_resource_destroy(). Additionally, Bjorn pointed out that I broke
> > KUnit on certain configurations (like the default one for x86, whoops).
> > 
> > Based on Stephen's feedback on the previous change, I think we are
> > pretty close. I am not expecting any significant changes from here on
> > out.
> > 
> 
> Hi Brendan,
> 
> I found checkpatch errors in one or two patches. Can you fix those and
> send v14.

Hi Shuah,

Are you refering to the following errors?

ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses
#144: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:456:
+#define KUNIT_BINARY_CLASS \
+       kunit_binary_assert, KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_ASSERT_STRUCT

ERROR: Macros with complex values should be enclosed in parentheses
#146: FILE: include/kunit/test.h:458:
+#define KUNIT_BINARY_PTR_CLASS \
+       kunit_binary_ptr_assert, KUNIT_INIT_BINARY_PTR_ASSERT_STRUCT

These values should *not* be in parentheses. I am guessing checkpatch is
getting confused and thinks that these are complex expressions, when
they are not.

I ignored the errors since I figured checkpatch was complaining
erroneously.

I could refactor the code to remove these macros entirely, but I think
the code is cleaner with them.

What would you prefer I do?

NB: These macros are introduced in: "[PATCH v13 05/18] kunit: test: add
the concept of expectations"

Thanks!