The kunit_device_register() function doesn't return NULL, it returns
error pointers. Change the KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() to check for
ERR_OR_NULL().
Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
---
It's a pity that there isn't a KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_PTR() macro...
lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
index c4259d910356..f7980ef236a3 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
@@ -720,7 +720,7 @@ static void kunit_device_cleanup_test(struct kunit *test)
long action_was_run = 0;
test_device = kunit_device_register(test, "my_device");
- KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, test_device);
+ KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test_device);
/* Add an action to verify cleanup. */
devm_add_action(test_device, test_dev_action, &action_was_run);
--
2.43.0
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 02:55, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> The kunit_device_register() function doesn't return NULL, it returns
> error pointers. Change the KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() to check for
> ERR_OR_NULL().
>
> Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
> Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> ---
Nice catch, thanks!
Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
> It's a pity that there isn't a KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_PTR() macro...
I think we'll add one, but I'm not yet totally convinced that it would
be better than using ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL() in cases like this,
where we're:
1. In a test; and,
2. using the pointer afterwards, expecting it to be valid
(dereferencing it and/or passing it to functions which will)
This is largely because it'd be nicer, if the pointer is NULL (due to
a bug), to get a more explicit assertion failure, rather than a crash.
It does make the test code less indicative of how the APIs are meant
to be used elsewhere, though, and annoys the static analysis, though.
Thoughts?
-- David
> lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> index c4259d910356..f7980ef236a3 100644
> --- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> +++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
> @@ -720,7 +720,7 @@ static void kunit_device_cleanup_test(struct kunit *test)
> long action_was_run = 0;
>
> test_device = kunit_device_register(test, "my_device");
> - KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, test_device);
> + KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test_device);
>
> /* Add an action to verify cleanup. */
> devm_add_action(test_device, test_dev_action, &action_was_run);
> --
> 2.43.0
>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 07:39:14AM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 02:55, Dan Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > The kunit_device_register() function doesn't return NULL, it returns
> > error pointers. Change the KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() to check for
> > ERR_OR_NULL().
> >
> > Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <[email protected]>
> > ---
>
> Nice catch, thanks!
>
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <[email protected]>
>
> > It's a pity that there isn't a KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_PTR() macro...
>
> I think we'll add one, but I'm not yet totally convinced that it would
> be better than using ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL() in cases like this,
> where we're:
> 1. In a test; and,
> 2. using the pointer afterwards, expecting it to be valid
> (dereferencing it and/or passing it to functions which will)
>
> This is largely because it'd be nicer, if the pointer is NULL (due to
> a bug), to get a more explicit assertion failure, rather than a crash.
> It does make the test code less indicative of how the APIs are meant
> to be used elsewhere, though, and annoys the static analysis, though.
>
> Thoughts?
It doesn't annoy any static checkers because nothing looks for it.
Expecting that this test code might be buggier than normal code probably
isn't unreasonable so I guess that makes sense.
regards,
dan carpenter