> -----Original Message----- > From: Greg KH > > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:25PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > From: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > KUnit tests for initialized data behavior of proc_dointvec that is > > explicitly checked in the code. Includes basic parsing tests including > > int min/max overflow. > > > > Signed-off-by: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > kernel/Makefile | 2 + > > kernel/sysctl-test.c | 292 > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > lib/Kconfig.debug | 6 + > > 3 files changed, 300 insertions(+) > > create mode 100644 kernel/sysctl-test.c > > > > diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile > > index 6c57e78817dad..c81a8976b6a4b 100644 > > --- a/kernel/Makefile > > +++ b/kernel/Makefile > > @@ -112,6 +112,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_IOMEM) += iomem.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_ZONE_DEVICE) += memremap.o > > obj-$(CONFIG_RSEQ) += rseq.o > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST) += sysctl-test.o > > You are going to have to have a "standard" naming scheme for test > modules, are you going to recommend "foo-test" over "test-foo"? If so, > that's fine, we should just be consistant and document it somewhere. > > Personally, I'd prefer "test-foo", but that's just me, naming is hard... My preference would be "test-foo" as well. Just my 2 cents. -- Tim
