With some of the stricter type checking in KUnit's EXPECT macros removed, several casts in sysctl-test are no longer required.
Remove the unnecessary casts, making the conditions clearer.
Signed-off-by: David Gow davidgow@google.com --- This should be a no-op functionality wise, and while it depends on the first couple of patches in this series, it's otherwise independent from the others. I think this makes the test more readable, but if you particularly dislike it, I'm happy to drop it.
kernel/sysctl-test.c | 24 ++++++++++++------------ 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
diff --git a/kernel/sysctl-test.c b/kernel/sysctl-test.c index ccb78509f1a8..664ded05dd7a 100644 --- a/kernel/sysctl-test.c +++ b/kernel/sysctl-test.c @@ -49,7 +49,7 @@ static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_null_tbl_data(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&null_data_table, KUNIT_PROC_READ, buffer, &len, &pos)); - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (size_t)0, len); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len);
/* * See above. @@ -58,7 +58,7 @@ static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_null_tbl_data(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&null_data_table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE, buffer, &len, &pos)); - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (size_t)0, len); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len); }
/* @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_maxlen_unset(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&data_maxlen_unset_table, KUNIT_PROC_READ, buffer, &len, &pos)); - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (size_t)0, len); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len);
/* * See previous comment. @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_maxlen_unset(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&data_maxlen_unset_table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE, buffer, &len, &pos)); - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (size_t)0, len); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len); }
/* @@ -135,11 +135,11 @@ static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_len_is_zero(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_READ, buffer, &len, &pos)); - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (size_t)0, len); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len);
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE, buffer, &len, &pos)); - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (size_t)0, len); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len); }
/* @@ -174,7 +174,7 @@ static void sysctl_test_api_dointvec_table_read_but_position_set(
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_READ, buffer, &len, &pos)); - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, (size_t)0, len); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, len); }
/* @@ -203,7 +203,7 @@ static void sysctl_test_dointvec_read_happy_single_positive(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_READ, user_buffer, &len, &pos)); - KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, (size_t)3, len); + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, 3, len); buffer[len] = '\0'; /* And we read 13 back out. */ KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "13\n", buffer); @@ -233,9 +233,9 @@ static void sysctl_test_dointvec_read_happy_single_negative(struct kunit *test)
KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_READ, user_buffer, &len, &pos)); - KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, (size_t)4, len); + KUNIT_ASSERT_EQ(test, 4, len); buffer[len] = '\0'; - KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "-16\n", (char *)buffer); + KUNIT_EXPECT_STREQ(test, "-16\n", buffer); }
/* @@ -265,7 +265,7 @@ static void sysctl_test_dointvec_write_happy_single_positive(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE, user_buffer, &len, &pos)); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, len); - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, (size_t)pos); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, pos); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 9, *((int *)table.data)); }
@@ -295,7 +295,7 @@ static void sysctl_test_dointvec_write_happy_single_negative(struct kunit *test) KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, proc_dointvec(&table, KUNIT_PROC_WRITE, user_buffer, &len, &pos)); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, len); - KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, (size_t)pos); + KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, sizeof(input) - 1, pos); KUNIT_EXPECT_EQ(test, -9, *((int *)table.data)); }