On 4/18/21 3:39 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 04:58:03AM -0400, Nico Pache wrote: >> There are few instances of KUNIT tests that are not properly defined. >> This commit focuses on correcting these issues to match the standard >> defined in the Documentation. > The word "standard" seems to be over-stating things. The > documentation currently states, "they _usually_ have config options > ending in ``_KUNIT_TEST'' (emphasis mine). I can imagine that there > might be some useful things we can do from a tooling perspective if we > do standardize things, but if you really want to make it a "standard", > we should first update the manpage to say so, KUNIT Maintainers, should we go ahead and make this the "standard"? As Ted has stated... consistency with 'grep' is my desired outcome. > and explain why (e.g., > so that we can easily extract out all of the kunit test modules, and > perhaps paint a vision of what tools might be able to do with such a > standard). > > Alternatively, the word "standard" could perhaps be changed to > "convention", which I think more accurately defines how things work at > the moment.Nico Pache (6): > kunit: ASoC: topology: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: software node: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: ext4: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: lib: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: mptcp: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > m68k: update configs to match the proper KUNIT syntax > > Also, "adhear" is not the correct spelling; the correct spelling is > "adhere" (from the Latin verb "adhaerere", "to stick", as in "to hold > fast or stick by as if by gluing", which then became "to bind oneself > to the observance of a set of rules or standards or practices"). > > - Ted Whoops... Made that mistake in my v1 and inadvertently copied it over to all the patches. Cheers! -- Nico
