On Thu, 01 Sep 2022, Maíra Canal <mairacanal@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Hi Maxime, > > On 9/1/22 09:55, Maxime Ripard wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:42:10AM -0300, Maíra Canal wrote: >>> With the introduction of KUnit, IGT is no longer the only option to run >>> the DRM unit tests, as the tests can be run through kunit-tool or on >>> real hardware with CONFIG_KUNIT. >>> >>> Therefore, remove the "igt_" prefix from the tests and replace it with >>> the "test_drm_" prefix, making the tests' names independent from the tool >>> used. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@xxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> --- >>> v1 -> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20220830211603.191734-1-mairacanal@xxxxxxxxxx/ >>> - Change "drm_" prefix to "test_drm_", as "drm_" can be a bit confusing (Jani Nikula). >> >> I appreciate it's a bit of a bikeshed but I disagree with this. The >> majority of the kunit tests already out there start with the framework >> name, including *all* the examples in the kunit doc. Plus, it's fairly >> obvious that it's a test, kunit is only about running tests in the first >> place. > > Would it be better to keep it as "drm_"? That's not "keeping". That's renaming igt to drm. > Currently, I don't think it is appropriate to hold the "igt_" prefix, as > the tests are not IGT exclusive, but I don't have a strong opinion on > using the "drm_" or the "test_drm" prefixes. I repeat my stance that "drm_" alone is confusing. For the reason alone that it pollutes the code tagging tools, mixing actual drm_ types and functions with unit test functions. BR, Jani. > > Best Regards, > - Maíra Canal > >> >> Maxime >> -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
