On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 5:20 PM Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 3:57 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 03:38:00PM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote:
> > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 12:44 PM Andy Shevchenko <andy@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Oct 11, 2024 at 03:25:07PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
...
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/bitfield_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/checksum_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/cmdline_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/cpumask_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/fortify_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/hashtable_test.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/is_signed_type_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/kunit_iov_iter.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/list-test.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/memcpy_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/overflow_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/siphash_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/slub_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/stackinit_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/string_helpers_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/string_kunit.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/test_bits.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/test_fprobe.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/test_hash.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/test_kprobes.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/test_linear_ranges.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/test_list_sort.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/test_sort.c (100%)
> > > > > rename lib/{ => tests}/usercopy_kunit.c (100%)
> > > >
> > > > While I support the idea, I think this adds an additional churn in creating a
> > > > duplicate 'test' in the filenames. Why they all can't be cut while removing?
> > > > (at least this question is not answered in the commit message)
> > >
> > > To avoid duplicate *.ko file names?
> >
> > With what? Sorry, but I don't see how it's a problem. These are test cases.
> > Do they use kernel command line parameters? If so, shouldn't KUnit take care
> > about it in a more proper way?
>
> If .e.g. lib/list_sort.o could be modular, its module would be called
> "list_sort.ko", conflicting with the "list_sort.ko" test module.
Can't this be solved by automatically adding a prefix in Makefile for
kunit tests, for example?
--
With Best Regards,
Andy Shevchenko
