Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20220802161206.228707-1-mairacanal@riseup.net>
 <20220802161206.228707-3-mairacanal@riseup.net> <5c9038fd-a247-d0d3-841c-ba1e606bc309@riseup.net>
 <CAGS_qxodPndQZ_ypy-QP=ViNUvwZk1z1u8EAv9k5XzDEC4WSGQ@mail.gmail.com> <5931f10d-09ac-84f3-f5d1-65039478ae97@riseup.net>
In-Reply-To: <5931f10d-09ac-84f3-f5d1-65039478ae97@riseup.net>
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Date:   Tue, 2 Aug 2022 12:56:30 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxrYGrvg--bmdJ8zOV8+hCcY6=OZj0FtqheNtGP81XFL6Q@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] kunit: add KUnit array assertions to the example_all_expect_macros_test
To:     =?UTF-8?B?TWHDrXJhIENhbmFs?= <mairacanal@riseup.net>
Cc:     =?UTF-8?Q?Andr=C3=A9_Almeida?= <andrealmeid@riseup.net>,
        melissa.srw@gmail.com, daniel@ffwll.ch, javierm@redhat.com,
        siqueirajordao@riseup.net, Isabella Basso <isabbasso@riseup.net>,
        jose.exposito89@gmail.com, magalilemes00@gmail.com,
        tales.aparecida@gmail.com, davidgow@google.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, airlied@linux.ie, kuba@kernel.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Aug 2, 2022 at 12:00 PM Ma=C3=ADra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net> wr=
ote:
> > I don't know how we make a maximally fool-proof version of this macro :=
\
>
> This is a hard one also. I believe that use KUNIT_EXPECT_ARREQ(test,
> expected, expected, sizeof(expected)); is more compliant to the
> memcpy/memset/memcmp signature. Moreover, this problem also occur for
> the KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, memcmp(expected, expected, sizeof(expected)), 0=
);
>
> I believe that the number of array elements will make it easier for
> users to avoid mistakes.

Actually, another idea: perhaps KUNIT_EXPECT_MEMEQ?
I think that might be clearer in terms of the semantics and people
could more easily infer the right unit (bytes).

Daniel