[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAFd5g44NrKM9WQCF1xW-BWpFNsC05UAS9jt1-S+vNRuBDZVsHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 3 May 2019 16:41:10 -0700
From: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
To: Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: "Bird, Timothy" <Tim.Bird@...y.com>,
Frank Rowand <frowand.list@...il.com>,
Kees Cook <keescook@...gle.com>,
Kieran Bingham <kieran.bingham@...asonboard.com>,
Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@...nel.org>,
Rob Herring <robh@...nel.org>, Stephen Boyd <sboyd@...nel.org>,
shuah <shuah@...nel.org>,
devicetree <devicetree@...r.kernel.org>,
dri-devel <dri-devel@...ts.freedesktop.org>,
kunit-dev@...glegroups.com, linux-doc@...r.kernel.org,
linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org, linux-kbuild@...r.kernel.org,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
linux-kselftest@...r.kernel.org,
linux-nvdimm <linux-nvdimm@...ts.01.org>,
linux-um@...ts.infradead.org,
Sasha Levin <Alexander.Levin@...rosoft.com>,
Amir Goldstein <amir73il@...il.com>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>,
Dan Williams <dan.j.williams@...el.com>,
Daniel Vetter <daniel@...ll.ch>, Jeff Dike <jdike@...toit.com>,
Joel Stanley <joel@....id.au>,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Kevin Hilman <khilman@...libre.com>,
Knut Omang <knut.omang@...cle.com>,
Logan Gunthorpe <logang@...tatee.com>,
Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>,
Petr Mladek <pmladek@...e.com>,
Richard Weinberger <richard@....at>,
David Rientjes <rientjes@...gle.com>,
Steven Rostedt <rostedt@...dmis.org>, wfg@...ux.intel.com,
Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 16/17] kernel/sysctl-test: Add null pointer test for sysctl.c:proc_dointvec()
> On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 11:45:43AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:15 AM <Tim.Bird@...y.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Greg KH
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:25PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > > > From: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>
> > > > >
> > > > > KUnit tests for initialized data behavior of proc_dointvec that is
> > > > > explicitly checked in the code. Includes basic parsing tests including
> > > > > int min/max overflow.
> > > > >
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@...gle.com>
> > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@...gle.com>
> > > > > ---
> > > > > kernel/Makefile | 2 +
> > > > > kernel/sysctl-test.c | 292
> > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > lib/Kconfig.debug | 6 +
> > > > > 3 files changed, 300 insertions(+)
> > > > > create mode 100644 kernel/sysctl-test.c
> > > > >
> > > > > diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
> > > > > index 6c57e78817dad..c81a8976b6a4b 100644
> > > > > --- a/kernel/Makefile
> > > > > +++ b/kernel/Makefile
> > > > > @@ -112,6 +112,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_IOMEM) += iomem.o
> > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_ZONE_DEVICE) += memremap.o
> > > > > obj-$(CONFIG_RSEQ) += rseq.o
> > > > >
> > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST) += sysctl-test.o
> > > >
> > > > You are going to have to have a "standard" naming scheme for test
> > > > modules, are you going to recommend "foo-test" over "test-foo"? If so,
> > > > that's fine, we should just be consistant and document it somewhere.
> > > >
> > > > Personally, I'd prefer "test-foo", but that's just me, naming is hard...
> > >
> > > My preference would be "test-foo" as well. Just my 2 cents.
> >
> > I definitely agree we should be consistent. My personal bias
> > (unsurprisingly) is "foo-test," but this is just because that is the
> > convention I am used to in other projects I have worked on.
> >
> > On an unbiased note, we are currently almost evenly split between the
> > two conventions with *slight* preference for "foo-test": I ran the two
> > following grep commands on v5.1-rc7:
> >
> > grep -Hrn --exclude-dir="build" -e "config [a-zA-Z_0-9]\+_TEST$" | wc -l
> > grep -Hrn --exclude-dir="build" -e "config TEST_[a-zA-Z_0-9]\+" | wc -l
> >
> > "foo-test" has 36 occurrences.
> > "test-foo" has 33 occurrences.
> >
> > The things I am more concerned about is how this would affect file
> > naming. If we have a unit test for foo.c, I think foo_test.c is more
> > consistent with our namespacing conventions. The other thing, is if we
> > already have a Kconfig symbol called FOO_TEST (or TEST_FOO) what
> > should we name the KUnit test in this case? FOO_UNIT_TEST?
> > FOO_KUNIT_TEST, like I did above?
>
> Ok, I can live with "foo-test", as you are right, in a directory listing
> and config option, it makes more sense to add it as a suffix.
Cool, so just for future reference, if we already have a Kconfig
symbol called FOO_TEST (or TEST_FOO) what should we name the KUnit
test in this case? FOO_UNIT_TEST? FOO_KUNIT_TEST, like I did above?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists