Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
MIME-Version: 1.0
From:   Jann Horn <jannh@google.com>
Date:   Mon, 2 Nov 2020 17:05:02 +0100
Message-ID: <CAG48ez2A6o423ySWfdX7s3fzrMSVn1YLYk2EnE1dV0fgZQS45g@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: ASSERT_GE definition is backwards
To:     Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>
Cc:     Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>,
        kernel list <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

ASSERT_GE() is defined as:

/**
 * ASSERT_GE(expected, seen)
 *
 * @expected: expected value
 * @seen: measured value
 *
 * ASSERT_GE(expected, measured): expected >= measured
 */
#define ASSERT_GE(expected, seen) \
__EXPECT(expected, #expected, seen, #seen, >=, 1)

but that means that logically, if you want to write "assert that the
measured PID X is >= the expected value 0", you actually have to use
ASSERT_LE(0, X). That's really awkward. Normally you'd be talking
about how the seen value compares to the expected one, not the other
way around.

At the moment I see tests that are instead written like ASSERT_GE(X,
0), but then that means that the expected and seen values are the
wrong way around.

It might be good if someone could refactor the definitions of
ASSERT_GE and such to swap around which number is the expected and
which is the seen one.