On Tue, Jul 16, 2024 at 01:10:41PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 at 09:21, Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > fs/exec.c | 49 ++++++++-- > > fs/exec_test.c | 141 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > I've pulled this, but *PLEASE* don't do this. > > This screws up my workflow of just using tab-completion for filenames. > As a result, I absolutely abhor anybody who uses the same base-name > for different things. > > No, this is not the first time it happens, and it won't be the last. > And we had that same horrific pattern for fs/binfmt_elf_test.c from > before, and I didn't notice because it's not a core file to me, and I > seldom actually edit it. > > I would suggest that people use the patterns from lib/, which is > admittedly a bit schizophrenic in that you can either use > "lib/kunit/*.c" (probably preferred) or "lib/test_xyz.c". > > (Other subsystems use a "tests" subdirectory, so we do have a lot of > different ways to deal with this). > > Any of those models will keep the unit testing parts clearly separate, > and not mess up basic command line workflows. > > But do *not* use this "*_test.c" naming model. It's the worst of all > possible worlds. > > Please? Oh, sure, no problem! I have no attachment to this convention at all; I was trying to follow the Kunit docs: https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kunit/style.html#test-file-and-module-names If I look at the existing naming, it's pretty scattered: $ git grep '^static struct kunit_suite\b' | cut -d: -f1 | sort -u /test/* 7 /tests/* 47 *-test.[ch] 27 *_test.[ch] 27 test-*.c 1 test_*.c 10 *-kunit.c 1 *_kunit.c 17 kunit-*.c 2 kunit_*.c 1 Should we go with "put it all under a 'tests' subdirectory" ? So for fs/exec_test.c and fs/binfmt_elf_test.c, perhaps fs/tests/exec.c and fs/tests/binfmt_elf.c respectively? And for the lib/*_kunit.c files, use lib/tests/*.c ? Then we can update the docs, etc. -- Kees Cook
