On Mon, Sep 05, 2022 at 02:10:00PM +0200, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 03:38:28PM +0200, 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 > > We also have drm_test_buddy_alloc_limit, or drm_buddy_test_alloc_limit > > Both would be fine for me, with a small preference for the former, which > should also address Jani's concerns? > > > 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). > > Sure we do. kunit.py can take some filters too. Being able to only run > DRM tests with a single filter is super convenient, and if we fail to > provide a consistent naming we're pretty much sure people running the > tests are going to miss some. We have "test suite" - and we do have a naming convention for that. Filter glob takes test_suite.test_name. Let's use specific examples. Starting with igt_buddy_alloc_limit, "full" test name is "drm_buddy.igt_buddy_alloc_limit" - the way to run this single test would be: ./kunit.py run 'drm_buddy.igt_buddy_alloc_limit' Say we want to run all drm_buddy tests, we can do it with: ./kunit.py run 'drm_buddy.*' We can also run all DRM tests: ./kunit.py run 'drm*' What you're arguing, is that we need to rename all test cases to have drm_test prefix, so the full testname for igt_buddy_alloc_limit becomes drm_buddy.drm_test_buddy_alloc_limit, because we want to be able to use this specific glob for matching by test case names (not test suites): ./kunit.py run '*.drm*' Why? We can already do that with 'drm*', that's what the test suites are for, and the glob is simpler and more intuitive IMO. -Michał > > Maxime
