Messages in this thread | | | Date | Mon, 3 Aug 2020 11:57:21 +0300 | From | Andy Shevchenko <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH v2] lib: kunit: Convert test_sort to KUnit test |
| |
On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:59:28PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 12:19 PM Andy Shevchenko > <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com> wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 29, 2020 at 04:11:51PM -0300, Vitor Massaru Iha wrote:
...
> > > lib/{test_sort.c => sort_kunit.c} | 31 +++++++++++++++---------------- > > > > Still opened question why kunit is a suffix? Can't we leave same name? Can't we > > do it rather prefix? > > Sorry to jump in now; I thought Vitor's reply with a link to the new > proposed documentation[1] addressed this. The naming convention issue > came up about a month ago[2]. The people in the discussion (including > myself) came to an agreement on _kunit.c. That being said, the > documentation hasn't been accepted yet, so if you really feel strongly > about it, now is the time to change it.
My argument is to do something like
- ls .../test* vs. ls .../*_kunit.c
- use shell completion vs. no completion when looking if there is a test module for something
But I agree that this is matter of style.
> All that being said, I would rather not discuss that issue here for > the benefit of the participants in the preceding discussions. > > I posted lore links for the relevant threads, which should be easy > enough to In-Reply-To your way into. Nevertheless, if it makes it > easier, let me know and I can CC you into the discussions.
No need. I think you have enough clever folks and good ideas behind this. Just put a reference to all these conversion patches to the summary of pros and cons of renaming.
> [1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/20200620054944.167330-1-davidgow@google.com/T/#u > [2] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/202006141005.BA19A9D3@keescook/t/#u
-- With Best Regards, Andy Shevchenko
| |