On Fri, 02 Sep 2022, Maxime Ripard <maxime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 11:04:14AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> 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. > > Well, there's like half the tests that are prefixed with drm, the other > with igt, so it's both really > >> > 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. > > What are you confusing it with? > >> For the reason alone that it pollutes the code tagging tools, mixing >> actual drm_ types and functions with unit test functions. > > I don't get it, I'm sorry. All these functions are static and not part > of any API, so I can't see how it would pollute a code tagging tool. Or > at least, not more than any driver does. > > And we're part of a larger project here, it's about consistency with the > rest of the ecosystem. Okay, so I'm just going to explain what I mean, but say "whatever" right after and move on. For example, drm_buddy_test.c includes drm_buddy.h so with the igt_ -> drm_ rename none of the test functions may clash with the drm_buddy_ prefixed existing functions. Ditto for all tests similarly. For example drm_buddy_alloc_range() as a name sounds like something that allocs a range, not something that tests range allocation. On the other hand, you have drm_buddy_alloc_blocks() which is actually a real drm_buddy function, not a test. What would you call a test that tests that? Here, we end up with names that are all prefixed drm_buddy and you won't know what's the actual function and what's the test unless you look it up. I use code tagging that I can use for finding and completing e.g. functions. Currently I have the following completions, for igt_buddy_ and drm_buddy_, respectively: Possible completions are: igt_buddy_alloc_limit igt_buddy_alloc_optimistic igt_buddy_alloc_pathological igt_buddy_alloc_pessimistic igt_buddy_alloc_range igt_buddy_alloc_smoke Possible completions are: drm_buddy_alloc_blocks drm_buddy_block drm_buddy_block_is_allocated drm_buddy_block_is_free drm_buddy_block_is_split drm_buddy_block_offset drm_buddy_block_order drm_buddy_block_print drm_buddy_block_size drm_buddy_block_state drm_buddy_block_trim drm_buddy_fini drm_buddy_free_block drm_buddy_free_list drm_buddy_init drm_buddy_init_test drm_buddy_module_exit drm_buddy_module_init drm_buddy_print With the patch at hand, they'll all be lumped under drm_buddy_ completions, and some of them will be actual drm buddy functions and some not. I just find it a very odd convention to name the tests in a way that's indistinguishable from the real things. Even *within* drm_buddy_test.c where you read the test code. Because currently you do have calls to igt_buddy_ prefixed functions from other igt_buddy_ prefixed functions, along with the drm_buddy_ prefixed calls. I think it's just going to be a mess. /rant Whatever. Moving on. BR, Jani. -- Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
