Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Sep 2022 14:34:00 +0200 | From | Maxime Ripard <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/tests: Change "igt_" prefix to "test_drm_" |
| |
On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 11:04:14AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: > On Thu, 01 Sep 2022, Maíra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net> wrote: > > Hi Maxime, > > > > On 9/1/22 09:55, Maxime Ripard wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 09:42:10AM -0300, Maíra Canal wrote: > >>> With the introduction of KUnit, IGT is no longer the only option to run > >>> the DRM unit tests, as the tests can be run through kunit-tool or on > >>> real hardware with CONFIG_KUNIT. > >>> > >>> Therefore, remove the "igt_" prefix from the tests and replace it with > >>> the "test_drm_" prefix, making the tests' names independent from the tool > >>> used. > >>> > >>> Signed-off-by: Maíra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net> > >>> > >>> --- > >>> v1 -> v2: https://lore.kernel.org/dri-devel/20220830211603.191734-1-mairacanal@riseup.net/ > >>> - Change "drm_" prefix to "test_drm_", as "drm_" can be a bit confusing (Jani Nikula). > >> > >> I appreciate it's a bit of a bikeshed but I disagree with this. The > >> majority of the kunit tests already out there start with the framework > >> name, including *all* the examples in the kunit doc. Plus, it's fairly > >> obvious that it's a test, kunit is only about running tests in the first > >> place. > > > > Would it be better to keep it as "drm_"? > > That's not "keeping". That's renaming igt to drm.
Well, there's like half the tests that are prefixed with drm, the other with igt, so it's both really
> > Currently, I don't think it is appropriate to hold the "igt_" prefix, as > > the tests are not IGT exclusive, but I don't have a strong opinion on > > using the "drm_" or the "test_drm" prefixes. > > I repeat my stance that "drm_" alone is confusing.
What are you confusing it with?
> For the reason alone that it pollutes the code tagging tools, mixing > actual drm_ types and functions with unit test functions.
I don't get it, I'm sorry. All these functions are static and not part of any API, so I can't see how it would pollute a code tagging tool. Or at least, not more than any driver does.
And we're part of a larger project here, it's about consistency with the rest of the ecosystem.
Maxime [unhandled content-type:application/pgp-signature] | |