On Wed, Jul 17, 2024 at 02:28:15PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > On Wed, 17 Jul 2024 at 11:53, Kees Cook <kees@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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" ? > > I think that's probably best overall. I still think it isn't quite as > elegant as the suffix, but I'm happy to sacrifice theoretical elegance > for a practical reason like this. Okay, I will send a follow-up patch to rename things. > > So for fs/exec_test.c and fs/binfmt_elf_test.c, perhaps fs/tests/exec.c > > and fs/tests/binfmt_elf.c respectively? > > We might want to use both the directory and the suffix, e.g. > fs/tests/exec_test.c, because: > - it makes sure the module name contains 'test', so it's obvious that > it's a test and it is less likely to conflict. > - this matches what drm is doing, and they've got the most tests thus far; and > - we won't be renaming the file, just moving it, so it's less likely > to cause friction with workflows, etc. > > On the other hand, it has few disadvantages: > - we end up with the same prefix issue with module names (e.g., for > those who have tab completion for modprobe); > - the module name can be changed in the Makefile anyway; and > - it's ugly. > > I'm leaning towards tolerating the ugliness and keeping _test suffixes > on the files, at least for existing tests, but could be persuaded > otherwise. I'd even grow to accept a test_ prefix if I had to, though > that'd make my tab completion terribly boring. I'd been using _test for #included files, and _kunit for kunit modules, but perhaps this isn't a needed distinction? > > And for the lib/*_kunit.c files, use lib/tests/*.c ? > > Sounds good to me. I'd rather not put them in lib/kunit unless they're > actively testing KUnit itself (which, under this scheme, would want to > be in lib/kunit/tests). Right -- I didn't want to confuse things between kunit itself and kunit tests, so I too prefer the "tests" directory name. > > Then we can update the docs, etc. > > Even if we don't rename existing tests, we'll probably want to update > these just to avoid making the problem worse. Sounds good. -- Kees Cook
