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
References: <20210421183210.2557462-1-dlatypov@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210421183210.2557462-1-dlatypov@google.com>
From:   Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:02:55 -0700
Message-ID: <CAFd5g47P4atPPV5C0iBFV8kZm1vUgzST-ghLMm4nq2Qc-=C9Ow@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] kunit: introduce kunit_kmalloc_array/kunit_kcalloc() helpers
To:     Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Cc:     David Gow <davidgow@google.com>,
        Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
        "open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK" 
        <linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
        Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 11:32 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
>
> Add in:
> * kunit_kmalloc_array() and wire up kunit_kmalloc() to be a special
> case of it.
> * kunit_kcalloc() for symmetry with kunit_kzalloc()
>
> This should using KUnit more natural by making it more similar to the
> existing *alloc() APIs.
>
> And while we shouldn't necessarily be writing unit tests where overflow
> should be a concern, it can't hurt to be safe.
>
> Signed-off-by: Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>

Aside from the copy and paste issue that David already pointed out, LGTM.

Reviewed-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>