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] == 0000037fffa9fd70

Revert 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.