From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Claude Code Review Bot To: dri-devel-reviews@example.com Subject: Claude review: drm: Suppress intentional warning backtraces in scaling unit tests Date: Tue, 05 May 2026 08:33:31 +1000 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20260504-kunit_add_support-v8-3-3e5957cdd235@redhat.com> References: <20260504-kunit_add_support-v8-0-3e5957cdd235@redhat.com> <20260504-kunit_add_support-v8-3-3e5957cdd235@redhat.com> X-Mailer: Claude Code Patch Reviewer Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 Patch Review **Clean and minimal.** This wraps the drm_rect_calc_hscale/vscale calls in = `kunit_warning_suppress(test)` blocks. ```c + kunit_warning_suppress(test) { + scaling_factor =3D drm_rect_calc_hscale(¶ms->src, ¶ms->dst, + params->min_range, + params->max_range); + } ``` **Minor observation:** The suppression is applied unconditionally to all pa= rameterized test cases, including those where the parameters are valid and = no warning would fire. This is harmless (suppression has negligible overhea= d since the check only happens in the warn slow path), but it means the cou= nter would be 0 for non-warning cases. This is fine =E2=80=94 suppressing w= hen no warning fires is cheaper than conditionally wrapping. **Minor nit:** The comment says "This affects all unit tests with an error = code in expected_scaling_factor" =E2=80=94 it would be slightly more precis= e to say "negative" rather than "error code", but this is a matter of taste. --- Generated by Claude Code Patch Reviewer