Hey, On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:51:44AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote: > > ... > > > I almost wonder if we should just pick a prefix that's less obviously connected > > > to KVM and/or selftests, but unique and short. > > > > > > > How about kvmsft_ ? It's based on the ksft_ prefix of kselftest.h. Maybe > > it's too close to ksft though and would be confusing when using both in > > the same test? > > I would prefer something short, and for whatever reason I have a mental block > with ksft. I always read it as "k soft", which is completely nonsensical :-) I despise brevity in tests, so my strong preference is to use some form of 'namespaced' helper. Perhaps others have better memory than I do, but I'm quick to forget the selftests library and find the more verbose / obvious function names helpful for jogging my memory. > > I'm not a huge fan of capital letters, but we could also do something like > > MALLOC()/CALLOC(). > > Hmm, I'm not usually a fan either, but that could actually work quite well in this > case. It would be quite intuitive, easy to visually parse whereas tmalloc() vs > malloc() kinda looks like a typo, and would more clearly communicate that they're > macros. Ooo, don't leave me out on the bikeshedding! How about TEST_MALLOC() / TEST_CALLOC(). It is vaguely similar to TEST_ASSERT(), which I'd hope would give the impression that an assertion is lurking below. -- Thanks, Oliver
