Hello,
I have a function returning 'unsigned long', and would like to write a kunit
test for the function, as below.
unsigned long foo(void)
{
return 42;
}
static void foo_test(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42, foo());
}
However, this kunit gives me below warning for the above code:
/.../linux/include/linux/kernel.h:842:29: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
(!!(sizeof((typeof(x) *)1 == (typeof(y) *)1)))
^
/.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:493:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__typecheck’
((void)__typecheck(__left, __right)); \
^~~~~~~~~~~
/.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:517:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION’
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION(test, \
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:606:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION’
KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:616:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION’
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:979:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION’
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, left, right)
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/.../linux/mm/foo-test.h:565:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ’
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42, foo());
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I could remove the warning by explicitly type casting the constant as below:
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (unsigned long)42, foo());
However, now 'checkpatch.pl' complains about the type casting as below.
WARNING: Unnecessary typecast of c90 int constant
#565: FILE: mm/foo-test.h:565:
+ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (unsigned long)42, foo());
Of course, there could be several work-arounds for these warnings, such as
using 'EXPECT_TRUE(test, 42 == foo())' or casting the function's return value.
Nonetheless, I'm not sure what is the right way. Could you please let me know
what is the recommended way for this case?
Thanks,
SeongJae Park
Hi all!
On 27/12/2019 13:39, SeongJae Park wrote:
[...]
> I have a function returning 'unsigned long', and would like to write a kunit
> test for the function, as below.
>
> unsigned long foo(void)
> {
> return 42;
> }
>
> static void foo_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42, foo());
> }
For this case: shouldn't
---- snip ----
static void foo_test(struct kunit *test)
{
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42ul, foo());
}
---- snip ----
do the trick?
MfG,
Bernd
--
"I dislike type abstraction if it has no real reason. And saving
on typing is not a good reason - if your typing speed is the main
issue when you're coding, you're doing something seriously wrong."
- Linus Torvalds
On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:52:27 +0100 Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> --------------D98A0A31D62B0BC2939BAEE9
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Hi all!
>
> On 27/12/2019 13:39, SeongJae Park wrote:
> [...]
> > I have a function returning 'unsigned long', and would like to write a =
> kunit
> > test for the function, as below.
> >=20
> > unsigned long foo(void)
> > {
> > return 42;
> > }
> >=20
> > static void foo_test(struct kunit *test)
> > {
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42, foo());
> > }
>
> For this case: shouldn't=20
> ---- snip ----
> static void foo_test(struct kunit *test)
> {
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42ul, foo());
> }
> ---- snip ----
> do the trick?
Unfortunately, it doesn't works.
[13:04:58] Building KUnit Kernel ...
In file included from /.../linux/include/linux/list.h:9:0,
from /.../linux/include/linux/wait.h:7,
from /.../linux/include/linux/wait_bit.h:8,
from /.../linux/include/linux/fs.h:6,
from /.../linux/include/linux/debugfs.h:15,
from /.../linux/mm/damon.c:12:
/.../linux/mm/damon-test.h: In function ‘damon_test_foo’:
/.../linux/include/linux/kernel.h:842:29: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
(!!(sizeof((typeof(x) *)1 == (typeof(y) *)1)))
^
/.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:493:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__typecheck’
((void)__typecheck(__left, __right)); \
^~~~~~~~~~~
/.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:517:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION’
KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION(test, \
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:606:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION’
KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:616:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION’
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:979:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION’
KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, left, right)
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/.../linux/mm/damon-test.h:565:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ’
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42ul, (int)foo());
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some other thoughts?
Thanks,
SeongJae Park
>
> MfG,
> Bernd
> --=20
> "I dislike type abstraction if it has no real reason. And saving
> on typing is not a good reason - if your typing speed is the main
> issue when you're coding, you're doing something seriously wrong."
> - Linus Torvalds
Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation. (I still am, but I was too ;-).)
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:52 AM SeongJae Park <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:52:27 +0100 Bernd Petrovitsch <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > --------------D98A0A31D62B0BC2939BAEE9
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> >
> > Hi all!
> >
> > On 27/12/2019 13:39, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > [...]
> > > I have a function returning 'unsigned long', and would like to write a =
> > kunit
> > > test for the function, as below.
> > >=20
> > > unsigned long foo(void)
> > > {
> > > return 42;
> > > }
> > >=20
> > > static void foo_test(struct kunit *test)
> > > {
> > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42, foo());
> > > }
> >
> > For this case: shouldn't=20
> > ---- snip ----
> > static void foo_test(struct kunit *test)
> > {
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42ul, foo());
> > }
> > ---- snip ----
> > do the trick?
>
> Unfortunately, it doesn't works.
>
> [13:04:58] Building KUnit Kernel ...
> In file included from /.../linux/include/linux/list.h:9:0,
> from /.../linux/include/linux/wait.h:7,
> from /.../linux/include/linux/wait_bit.h:8,
> from /.../linux/include/linux/fs.h:6,
> from /.../linux/include/linux/debugfs.h:15,
> from /.../linux/mm/damon.c:12:
> /.../linux/mm/damon-test.h: In function ‘damon_test_foo’:
> /.../linux/include/linux/kernel.h:842:29: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast
> (!!(sizeof((typeof(x) *)1 == (typeof(y) *)1)))
> ^
> /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:493:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__typecheck’
> ((void)__typecheck(__left, __right)); \
> ^~~~~~~~~~~
> /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:517:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION’
> KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION(test, \
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:606:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION’
> KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:616:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION’
> KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:979:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION’
> KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, left, right)
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> /.../linux/mm/damon-test.h:565:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ’
> KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42ul, (int)foo());
> ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Isn't the issue here that you fixed the 42, but are now casting the
result of foo() to an int?
Or have you fixed that now too?
Worst case (gross) scenario, you could just cast 42 to whatever type
foo() returns.
> Some other thoughts?
>
>
> Thanks,
> SeongJae Park
>
>
> >
> > MfG,
> > Bernd
> > --=20
> > "I dislike type abstraction if it has no real reason. And saving
> > on typing is not a good reason - if your typing speed is the main
> > issue when you're coding, you're doing something seriously wrong."
> > - Linus Torvalds
On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 05:35:21 -0800 Brendan Higgins <[email protected]> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation. (I still am, but I was too ;-).)
Happy new year, Brendan :)
>
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:52 AM SeongJae Park <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:52:27 +0100 Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovits=
> ch.priv.at> wrote:
> >
> > > This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
> > > --------------D98A0A31D62B0BC2939BAEE9
> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dutf-8
> > > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> > >
> > > Hi all!
> > >
> > > On 27/12/2019 13:39, SeongJae Park wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > I have a function returning 'unsigned long', and would like to write =
> a =3D
> > > kunit
> > > > test for the function, as below.
> > > >=3D20
> > > > unsigned long foo(void)
> > > > {
> > > > return 42;
> > > > }
> > > >=3D20
> > > > static void foo_test(struct kunit *test)
> > > > {
> > > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42, foo());
> > > > }
> > >
> > > For this case: shouldn't=3D20
> > > ---- snip ----
> > > static void foo_test(struct kunit *test)
> > > {
> > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42ul, foo());
> > > }
> > > ---- snip ----
> > > do the trick?
> >
> > Unfortunately, it doesn't works.
> >
> > [13:04:58] Building KUnit Kernel ...
> > In file included from /.../linux/include/linux/list.h:9:0,
> > from /.../linux/include/linux/wait.h:7,
> > from /.../linux/include/linux/wait_bit.h:8,
> > from /.../linux/include/linux/fs.h:6,
> > from /.../linux/include/linux/debugfs.h:15,
> > from /.../linux/mm/damon.c:12:
> > /.../linux/mm/damon-test.h: In function =E2=80=98damon_test_foo=E2=80=
> =99:
> > /.../linux/include/linux/kernel.h:842:29: warning: comparison of dist=
> inct pointer types lacks a cast
> > (!!(sizeof((typeof(x) *)1 =3D=3D (typeof(y) *)1)))
> > ^
> > /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:493:9: note: in expansion of macro =
> =E2=80=98__typecheck=E2=80=99
> > ((void)__typecheck(__left, __right)); \
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~
> > /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:517:2: note: in expansion of macro =
> =E2=80=98KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION=E2=80=99
> > KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION(test, \
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:606:2: note: in expansion of macro =
> =E2=80=98KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION=E2=80=99
> > KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:616:2: note: in expansion of macro =
> =E2=80=98KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION=E2=80=99
> > KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:979:2: note: in expansion of macro =
> =E2=80=98KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION=E2=80=99
> > KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, left, right)
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > /.../linux/mm/damon-test.h:565:2: note: in expansion of macro =E2=80=
> =98KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ=E2=80=99
> > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42ul, (int)foo());
> > ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Isn't the issue here that you fixed the 42, but are now casting the
> result of foo() to an int?
Oh, right... Removing the non-sense casting fixed the problem. Thanks,
Brendan!
Thanks,
SeongJae Park
>
> Or have you fixed that now too?
>
> Worst case (gross) scenario, you could just cast 42 to whatever type
> foo() returns.
>
> > Some other thoughts?
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> > SeongJae Park
> >
> >
> > >
> > > MfG,
> > > Bernd
> > > --=3D20
> > > "I dislike type abstraction if it has no real reason. And saving
> > > on typing is not a good reason - if your typing speed is the main
> > > issue when you're coding, you're doing something seriously wrong."
> > > - Linus Torvalds
>
On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:49 AM SeongJae Park <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 05:35:21 -0800 Brendan Higgins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation. (I still am, but I was too ;-).)
>
> Happy new year, Brendan :)
Happy New Year!
> >
> > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:52 AM SeongJae Park <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:52:27 +0100 Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovits=
> > ch.priv.at> wrote:
[...]
> Oh, right... Removing the non-sense casting fixed the problem. Thanks,
> Brendan!
No worries, I do that kind of stuff all the time :-)
Does that fix everything? It looks like there was an encoding issue
with your last email, so I wasn't sure if I got everything.
Cheers!
On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 06:12:47 -0800 Brendan Higgins <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 5:49 AM SeongJae Park <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 05:35:21 -0800 Brendan Higgins <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Sorry for the delay, I was on vacation. (I still am, but I was too ;-).)
> >
> > Happy new year, Brendan :)
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> > >
> > > On Tue, Jan 7, 2020 at 3:52 AM SeongJae Park <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:52:27 +0100 Bernd Petrovitsch <bernd@petrovits=
> > > ch.priv.at> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Oh, right... Removing the non-sense casting fixed the problem. Thanks,
> > Brendan!
>
> No worries, I do that kind of stuff all the time :-)
Thanks :)
>
> Does that fix everything? It looks like there was an encoding issue
> with your last email, so I wasn't sure if I got everything.
Yes, it fixed my every problem. Both 'kunit' and 'checkpatch.pl' shows no
warning, now.
Thanks,
SeongJae Park
>
> Cheers!
>