The check that the new vector length we set was the expected one was typoed
to an assignment statement which for some reason the compilers didn't spot,
most likely due to the macros involved.
Fixes: a1d7111257cd ("selftests: arm64: More comprehensively test the SVE
ptrace interface")
Acked-by: Mark Rutland <[email protected]>
Acked-by: Dev Jain <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Mark Brown <[email protected]>
---
tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c
b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c
index 577b6e05e860..c499d5789dd5 100644
--- a/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c
+++ b/tools/testing/selftests/arm64/fp/sve-ptrace.c
@@ -253,7 +253,7 @@ static void ptrace_set_get_vl(pid_t child, const struct
vec_type *type,
return;
}
- ksft_test_result(new_sve->vl = prctl_vl, "Set %s VL %u\n",
+ ksft_test_result(new_sve->vl == prctl_vl, "Set %s VL %u\n",
type->name, vl);
free(new_sve);
--
2.39.5
