Re: [PATCH 4/5] kunit: assert: export non-static functions

[Ivan Orlov]

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