On Wed, Jun 26, 2019 at 12:53 AM Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 4:22 PM Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:26:02AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > > > diff --git a/kunit/example-test.c b/kunit/example-test.c > > > new file mode 100644 > > > index 0000000000000..f44b8ece488bb > > > --- /dev/null > > > +++ b/kunit/example-test.c > > > > <-- snip --> > > > > > +/* > > > + * This defines a suite or grouping of tests. > > > + * > > > + * Test cases are defined as belonging to the suite by adding them to > > > + * `kunit_cases`. > > > + * > > > + * Often it is desirable to run some function which will set up things which > > > + * will be used by every test; this is accomplished with an `init` function > > > + * which runs before each test case is invoked. Similarly, an `exit` function > > > + * may be specified which runs after every test case and can be used to for > > > + * cleanup. For clarity, running tests in a test module would behave as follows: > > > + * > > > > To be clear this is not the kernel module init, but rather the kunit > > module init. I think using kmodule would make this clearer to a reader. > > Seems reasonable. Will fix in next revision. > > > > + * module.init(test); > > > + * module.test_case[0](test); > > > + * module.exit(test); > > > + * module.init(test); > > > + * module.test_case[1](test); > > > + * module.exit(test); > > > + * ...; > > > + */ Do you think it might be clearer yet to rename `struct kunit_module *module;` to `struct kunit_suite *suite;`?
