Re: [PATCH 1/4] selftests: ntsync: fix the wrong condition in wake_all

[Su Hui]

On 2025/3/16 04:29, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
> On Saturday, 15 March 2025 04:39:46 CDT Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 05:13:50PM -0500, Elizabeth Figura wrote:
> > > On Friday, 14 March 2025 05:14:30 CDT Su Hui wrote:
> > > > On 2025/3/14 17:21, Dan Carpenter wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 03:14:51PM +0800, Su Hui wrote:
> > > > > > When  'manual=false' and  'signaled=true', then expected value when using
> > > > > > NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_EVENT should be greater than zero. Fix this typo error.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Su Hui<suhui@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >    tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c | 2 +-
> > > > > >    1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c
> > > > > > index 3aad311574c4..bfb6fad653d0 100644
> > > > > > --- a/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c
> > > > > > +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/drivers/ntsync/ntsync.c
> > > > > > @@ -968,7 +968,7 @@ TEST(wake_all)
> > > > > >    	auto_event_args.manual = false;
> > > > > >    	auto_event_args.signaled = true;
> > > > > >    	objs[3] = ioctl(fd, NTSYNC_IOC_CREATE_EVENT, &auto_event_args);
> > > > > > -	EXPECT_EQ(0, objs[3]);
> > > > > > +	EXPECT_LE(0, objs[3]);
> > > > > It's kind of weird how these macros put the constant on the left.
> > > > > It returns an "fd" on success.  So this look reasonable.  It probably
> > > > > won't return the zero fd so we could probably check EXPECT_LT()?
> > > > Agreed, there are about 29 items that can be changed to EXPECT_LT().
> > > > I can send a v2 patchset with this change if there is no more other
> > > > suggestions.
> > > I personally think it looks wrong to use EXPECT_LT(), but I'll certainly
> > > defer to a higher maintainer on this point.
> > I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.  Are you saying that we
> > should allow zero as an expected file descriptor here?  I don't have
> > strong feelings about that either way.
> Yes, my apologies for the ambiguous wording. That is, EXPECT_LE looks more correct to me than EXPECT_LT per se.

Got it, I think there is no need for v2 patch that using EXPECT_LT(). 
Thanks for your feedback.

Su Hui