On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 07:33:18PM -0300, Maíra Canal 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_"? > > 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. Yes, using drm as our prefix everywhere seems like a good idea :) Maxime
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
