Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-207487-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45e3:2400::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45e3:2400::1;
Message-ID: <d8b30709-0be0-4474-88c5-8131ec74ec3f@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 9 Jun 2024 20:05:30 +0100
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/5] kunit: assert: export non-static functions
To: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc: brendan.higgins@linux.dev, rmoar@google.com,
 linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
 linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <20240604123204.10412-1-ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com>
 <20240604123204.10412-5-ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com>
 <CABVgOS=8S4QqAdNHs7hLXfD7HGq+eQNUqVbLkTu94-BUDTxOWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Ivan Orlov <ivan.orlov0322@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABVgOS=8S4QqAdNHs7hLXfD7HGq+eQNUqVbLkTu94-BUDTxOWA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On 6/8/24 10:20, David Gow wrote:
> I think this could be merged with patch 5, as it's not useful on its
> own. Also, a few of the symbol names might be a little too generic to
> be exported: maybe we should give them a 'kunit_assert' prefix?
> 
> Cheers,
> -- David
> 

Hi David,

Thank you for the review and yes, I agree that it would be more useful 
in the scope of the next patch (so I'm going to squash it with the next 
patch in the V2).

>>   lib/kunit/assert.c | 4 ++++
>>   1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/lib/kunit/assert.c b/lib/kunit/assert.c
>> index 867aa5c4bccf..f394e4b8482f 100644
>> --- a/lib/kunit/assert.c
>> +++ b/lib/kunit/assert.c
>> @@ -38,6 +38,7 @@ void kunit_assert_print_msg(const struct va_format *message,
>>          if (message->fmt)
>>                  string_stream_add(stream, "\n%pV", message);
>>   }
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(kunit_assert_print_msg);
>>
>>   void kunit_fail_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert,
>>                                const struct va_format *message,
>> @@ -112,6 +113,7 @@ VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT bool is_literal(const char *text, long long value)
>>
>>          return ret;
>>   }
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(is_literal);
> 
> I'm a bit worried about having such a generic name exported, even
> conditionally and to a namespace. Maybe we could give this a
> 'kunit_assert' prefix, or put it in a separate, more specific
> namespace?
> 

Yeah, makes sense, I'll rename them in the next version of the series. 
Thank you!

>>
>>   void kunit_binary_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert,
>>                                  const struct va_format *message,
>> @@ -180,6 +182,7 @@ VISIBLE_IF_KUNIT bool is_str_literal(const char *text, const char *value)
>>
>>          return strncmp(text + 1, value, len - 2) == 0;
>>   }
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(is_str_literal);
> 
> I'm a bit worried about having such a generic name exported, even
> conditionally and to a namespace. Maybe we could give this a
> 'kunit_assert' prefix, or put it in a separate, more specific
> namespace?
> 
> 

Same here: will be renamed :)

Thanks!

> 
> 
>>   void kunit_binary_str_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert,
>>                                      const struct va_format *message,
>> @@ -232,6 +235,7 @@ void kunit_assert_hexdump(struct string_stream *stream,
>>                          string_stream_add(stream, " %02x ", buf1[i]);
>>          }
>>   }
>> +EXPORT_SYMBOL_IF_KUNIT(kunit_assert_hexdump);
>>
>>   void kunit_mem_assert_format(const struct kunit_assert *assert,
>>                               const struct va_format *message,
>> --
>> 2.34.1
>>

-- 
Kind regards,
Ivan Orlov