[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAHk-=wgim6pNiGTBMhP8Kd3tsB7_JTAuvNJ=XYd3wPvvk=OHog@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2024 13:10:41 -0700
From: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@...ux-foundation.org>
To: Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org>
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Alexey Dobriyan <adobriyan@...il.com>,
"H.J. Lu" <hjl.tools@...il.com>
Subject: Re: [GIT PULL] execve updates for v6.11-rc1
On Mon, 15 Jul 2024 at 09:21, Kees Cook <kees@...nel.org> 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?
Linus
Powered by blists - more mailing lists