On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 04:41:10PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 11:45:43AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:15 AM <Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Greg KH > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:25PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > > > > From: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > > > > > > > KUnit tests for initialized data behavior of proc_dointvec that is > > > > > > explicitly checked in the code. Includes basic parsing tests including > > > > > > int min/max overflow. > > > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > > --- > > > > > > kernel/Makefile | 2 + > > > > > > kernel/sysctl-test.c | 292 > > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > > > > lib/Kconfig.debug | 6 + > > > > > > 3 files changed, 300 insertions(+) > > > > > > create mode 100644 kernel/sysctl-test.c > > > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile > > > > > > index 6c57e78817dad..c81a8976b6a4b 100644 > > > > > > --- a/kernel/Makefile > > > > > > +++ b/kernel/Makefile > > > > > > @@ -112,6 +112,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_IOMEM) += iomem.o > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ZONE_DEVICE) += memremap.o > > > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_RSEQ) += rseq.o > > > > > > > > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST) += sysctl-test.o > > > > > > > > > > You are going to have to have a "standard" naming scheme for test > > > > > modules, are you going to recommend "foo-test" over "test-foo"? If so, > > > > > that's fine, we should just be consistant and document it somewhere. > > > > > > > > > > Personally, I'd prefer "test-foo", but that's just me, naming is hard... > > > > > > > > My preference would be "test-foo" as well. Just my 2 cents. > > > > > > I definitely agree we should be consistent. My personal bias > > > (unsurprisingly) is "foo-test," but this is just because that is the > > > convention I am used to in other projects I have worked on. > > > > > > On an unbiased note, we are currently almost evenly split between the > > > two conventions with *slight* preference for "foo-test": I ran the two > > > following grep commands on v5.1-rc7: > > > > > > grep -Hrn --exclude-dir="build" -e "config [a-zA-Z_0-9]\+_TEST$" | wc -l > > > grep -Hrn --exclude-dir="build" -e "config TEST_[a-zA-Z_0-9]\+" | wc -l > > > > > > "foo-test" has 36 occurrences. > > > "test-foo" has 33 occurrences. > > > > > > The things I am more concerned about is how this would affect file > > > naming. If we have a unit test for foo.c, I think foo_test.c is more > > > consistent with our namespacing conventions. The other thing, is if we > > > already have a Kconfig symbol called FOO_TEST (or TEST_FOO) what > > > should we name the KUnit test in this case? FOO_UNIT_TEST? > > > FOO_KUNIT_TEST, like I did above? > > > > Ok, I can live with "foo-test", as you are right, in a directory listing > > and config option, it makes more sense to add it as a suffix. > > Cool, so just for future reference, if we already have a Kconfig > symbol called FOO_TEST (or TEST_FOO) what should we name the KUnit > test in this case? FOO_UNIT_TEST? FOO_KUNIT_TEST, like I did above? FOO_KUNIT_TEST is fine, I doubt that's going to come up very often. thanks, greg k-h
