On 9/22/2024 8:05 AM, Guenter Roeck wrote:
This reverts commit e620799c414a035dea1208bcb51c869744931dbb.
The commit introduces unit test failures.
Expected cur == &entries[i], but cur == 0000037fffadfd80 &entries[i] == 0000037fffadfd60 # list_test_list_cut_position: pass:0 fail:1 skip:0 total:1 not ok 21 list_test_list_cut_position # list_test_list_cut_before: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/list-test.c:444 Expected cur == &entries[i], but cur == 0000037fffa9fd70 &entries[i] == 0000037fffa9fd60 # list_test_list_cut_before: EXPECTATION FAILED at lib/list-test.c:444 Expected cur == &entries[i], but cur == 0000037fffa9fd80 &entries[i] == 0000037fffa9fd70Revert it.
Fixes: e620799c414a ("list: test: fix tests for list_cut_position()") Cc: I Hsin Cheng richard120310@gmail.com Cc: David Gow davidgow@google.com Cc: Andrew Morton akpm@linux-foundation.org Signed-off-by: Guenter Roeck linux@roeck-us.net
I ran into this as well.
Reviewed-by: Jacob Keller jacob.e.keller@intel.com
lib/list-test.c | 6 ------ 1 file changed, 6 deletions(-)
diff --git a/lib/list-test.c b/lib/list-test.c index 4f3dc75baec1..e207c4c98d70 100644 --- a/lib/list-test.c +++ b/lib/list-test.c @@ -408,13 +408,10 @@ static void list_test_list_cut_position(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 2);
- i = 0; list_for_each(cur, &list1) { KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, cur, &entries[i]); i++; }
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 1);
} static void list_test_list_cut_before(struct kunit *test) @@ -439,13 +436,10 @@ static void list_test_list_cut_before(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 1);
- i = 0; list_for_each(cur, &list1) { KUNIT_EXPECT_PTR_EQ(test, cur, &entries[i]); i++; }
- KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, i, 2);
This test failure was also pointed out during an earlier review of the patch..
https://lore.kernel.org/all/CABVgOSmn=SEwq3je3+vJ-S1Rwb=cLT2a3_WKOQsHu9xZYEZ...
I suspect what we really want here is an explicit check against the length of the lists.