On 9/2/22 10:38, Michał Winiarski wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 04:03:20PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >> 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. > > KUnit docs [1] state: > https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kunit/style.html#test-cases > "As tests are themselves functions, their names cannot conflict with other > C identifiers in the kernel. This may require some creative naming." > And give examples of names. But this should be local to individual test suite - > as long as the test is readable, and the name describes what it is testing, we > should be fine. We don't even need to pass drm_* prefix, as this convention is > expected for test suites, not test cases [2]. > > Having said that - I do believe that igt_* prefix don't belong here (which is > why I'm progressively trying to get rid of in the patches that refactor some of > the tests). > I agree with Jani - can we take it on a case-by-case basis? > If the test name is too similar to the function that it is testing, we could go > with one of the following (taking igt_buddy_alloc_limit as example): > drm_buddy_test_alloc_limit > test_drm_buddy_alloc_limit > buddy_test_alloc_limit > test_buddy_alloc_limit > > And either of those is fine in my opinion (I'd personally go with > test_buddy_alloc_limit in this case). > We don't really need a DRM-wide (or worse, kernel wide) convention for test case > names (it's only really needed for test suites). Although I do like the idea of having a DRM-wide name convention for test cases as it would ease the identification of test cases, I can see that consensus on this matter might be hard. So I guess we can take case by case. But as it would be nice to remove the "igt_" prefix from the tests, a first name convention might be needed. Currently, I'm not sure in which direction to go for removing the "igt_" from the tests. For me, any of the options mentioned above would be okay, with a slight preference for the test_drm_ one. Mentioning "test" on the test case really helps distinguish the API and the test cases. Most of the KUnit tests that I saw have the "test" in some part of the function (sometimes in the beginning, sometimes in the end, or after the subsystem prefix). So, I guess using "test" on the functions is not a bad practice, or redundant. Best Regards, - Maíra Canal > > [1] https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kunit/style.html#test-cases > [2] https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kunit/style.html#suites > > -Michał > >> >> >> BR, >> Jani. >> >> >> -- >> Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center
