diff mbox series

kunit: Fix a NULL vs IS_ERR() bug

Message ID 39b4278f-35d2-4071-a3aa-ec49705272af@moroto.mountain
State New
Headers
Series kunit: Fix a NULL vs IS_ERR() bug |

Commit Message

Dan Carpenter Jan. 10, 2024, 6:55 p.m. UTC 
  The kunit_device_register() function doesn't return NULL, it returns
error pointers.  Change the KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() to check for
ERR_OR_NULL().

Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
---
It's a pity that there isn't a KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_PTR() macro...

 lib/kunit/kunit-test.c | 2 +-
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)

Comments

Dan Carpenter Jan. 12, 2024, 5:39 a.m. UTC | #1 
On Fri, Jan 12, 2024 at 07:39:14AM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 at 02:55, Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org> wrote:
> >
> > The kunit_device_register() function doesn't return NULL, it returns
> > error pointers.  Change the KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL() to check for
> > ERR_OR_NULL().
> >
> > Fixes: d03c720e03bd ("kunit: Add APIs for managing devices")
> > Signed-off-by: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>
> > ---
> 
> Nice catch, thanks!
> 
> Reviewed-by: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
> 
> > It's a pity that there isn't a KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_PTR() macro...
> 
> I think we'll add one, but I'm not yet totally convinced that it would
> be better than using ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL() in cases like this,
> where we're:
> 1. In a test; and,
> 2. using the pointer afterwards, expecting it to be valid
> (dereferencing it and/or passing it to functions which will)
> 
> This is largely because it'd be nicer, if the pointer is NULL (due to
> a bug), to get a more explicit assertion failure, rather than a crash.
> It does make the test code less indicative of how the APIs are meant
> to be used elsewhere, though, and annoys the static analysis, though.
> 
> Thoughts?

It doesn't annoy any static checkers because nothing looks for it.

Expecting that this test code might be buggier than normal code probably
isn't unreasonable so I guess that makes sense.

regards,
dan carpenter
diff mbox series

Patch

diff --git a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
index c4259d910356..f7980ef236a3 100644
--- a/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
+++ b/lib/kunit/kunit-test.c
@@ -720,7 +720,7 @@  static void kunit_device_cleanup_test(struct kunit *test)
 	long action_was_run = 0;
 
 	test_device = kunit_device_register(test, "my_device");
-	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_NULL(test, test_device);
+	KUNIT_ASSERT_NOT_ERR_OR_NULL(test, test_device);
 
 	/* Add an action to verify cleanup. */
 	devm_add_action(test_device, test_dev_action, &action_was_run);