From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.9 required=3.0 tests=DKIMWL_WL_HIGH,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_GIT autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E14AC2D0DA for ; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [209.132.180.67]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 726EC20740 for ; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:08:44 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=amazon.com header.i=@amazon.com header.b="IM9vqOEu" Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1727028AbfL0NIn (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Dec 2019 08:08:43 -0500 Received: from smtp-fw-6001.amazon.com ([52.95.48.154]:45941 "EHLO smtp-fw-6001.amazon.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1726053AbfL0NIn (ORCPT ); Fri, 27 Dec 2019 08:08:43 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=amazon.com; i=@amazon.com; q=dns/txt; s=amazon201209; t=1577452123; x=1608988123; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version: in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Q5c4P1klft40yJ0p29MuVtu83VklnTxjifywTVem2zo=; b=IM9vqOEuoP5sO3iDcz+CFkjlFWFto7VY9A+EyWf5Yuaa5MoDRLBRNJZ2 +PnOtDZlydnd4k/nM7n0HizAqikq0vZKaBP51V1aKgOCW+Y27YiJm6Kox Hg1mRyvRkfwxiNQPhQzrZAOdKNGNBtXH1lT+82+xos8dk3vysWF/ESnpw I=; IronPort-SDR: Pk8K7OzuhYrfSsahFWe24b9NEPtZcqwRMxX/tWmi/oPpMJAW1Fd/EBBJBdwvp809wg3MDZgg5D dgpU9+MjN18w== X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.69,363,1571702400"; d="scan'208";a="10736271" Received: from iad12-co-svc-p1-lb1-vlan3.amazon.com (HELO email-inbound-relay-2a-22cc717f.us-west-2.amazon.com) ([10.43.8.6]) by smtp-border-fw-out-6001.iad6.amazon.com with ESMTP; 27 Dec 2019 13:08:41 +0000 Received: from EX13MTAUEA001.ant.amazon.com (pdx4-ws-svc-p6-lb7-vlan3.pdx.amazon.com [10.170.41.166]) by email-inbound-relay-2a-22cc717f.us-west-2.amazon.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C80EAA0701; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:08:39 +0000 (UTC) Received: from EX13D31EUA001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.165.15) by EX13MTAUEA001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.61.243) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:08:39 +0000 Received: from u886c93fd17d25d.ant.amazon.com (10.43.160.44) by EX13D31EUA001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.165.15) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1367.3; Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:08:32 +0000 From: SeongJae Park To: Bernd Petrovitsch CC: SeongJae Park , , , , , , SeongJae Park Subject: Re: Re: What is the best way to compare an unsigned and a constant? Date: Fri, 27 Dec 2019 14:08:11 +0100 Message-ID: <20191227130811.12839-1-sjpark@amazon.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.17.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <688d8f4b-266f-2c47-d4e9-d0336316a0a9@petrovitsch.priv.at> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: [10.43.160.44] X-ClientProxiedBy: EX13D03UWC001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.162.136) To EX13D31EUA001.ant.amazon.com (10.43.165.15) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Fri, 27 Dec 2019 13:52:27 +0100 Bernd Petrovitsch wrote: > --------------D98A0A31D62B0BC2939BAEE9 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable > > Hi all! > > On 27/12/2019 13:39, SeongJae Park wrote: > [...] > > I have a function returning 'unsigned long', and would like to write a ku= > nit > > test for the function, as below. > >=20 > > unsigned long foo(void) > > { > > return 42; > > } > >=20 > > static void foo_test(struct kunit *test) > > { > > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42, foo()); > > } > > For this case: shouldn't=20 > ---- snip ---- > static void foo_test(struct kunit *test) > { > KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42ul, foo()); > } > ---- snip ---- > do the trick? Thank you for quick answer :) That makes 'checkpatch.pl' be silent, but unfortunately, not kunit. [13:04:58] Building KUnit Kernel ... In file included from /.../linux/include/linux/list.h:9:0, from /.../linux/include/linux/wait.h:7, from /.../linux/include/linux/wait_bit.h:8, from /.../linux/include/linux/fs.h:6, from /.../linux/include/linux/debugfs.h:15, from /.../linux/mm/damon.c:12: /.../linux/mm/damon-test.h: In function ‘damon_test_foo’: /.../linux/include/linux/kernel.h:842:29: warning: comparison of distinct pointer types lacks a cast (!!(sizeof((typeof(x) *)1 == (typeof(y) *)1))) ^ /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:493:9: note: in expansion of macro ‘__typecheck’ ((void)__typecheck(__left, __right)); \ ^~~~~~~~~~~ /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:517:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION’ KUNIT_BASE_BINARY_ASSERTION(test, \ ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:606:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION’ KUNIT_BASE_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \ ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:616:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION’ KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_MSG_ASSERTION(test, \ ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /.../linux/include/kunit/test.h:979:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION’ KUNIT_BINARY_EQ_ASSERTION(test, KUNIT_EXPECTATION, left, right) ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /.../linux/mm/damon-test.h:565:2: note: in expansion of macro ‘KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ’ KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 42ul, (int)foo()); ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thanks, SeongJae Park > > MfG, > Bernd > --=20 > "I dislike type abstraction if it has no real reason. And saving > on typing is not a good reason - if your typing speed is the main > issue when you're coding, you're doing something seriously wrong." > - Linus Torvalds >