From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from vger.kernel.org (vger.kernel.org [23.128.96.18]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 36419ECAAD5 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 13:38:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S238030AbiIENiV (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2022 09:38:21 -0400 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:39222 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S238144AbiIENiF (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Sep 2022 09:38:05 -0400 Received: from mx0.riseup.net (mx0.riseup.net [198.252.153.6]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 721754E636 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 06:37:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from fews2.riseup.net (fews2-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.84]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail.riseup.net", Issuer "R3" (not verified)) by mx0.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MLqMc5knRz9s74; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 13:37:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1662385069; bh=TB3di8dRlX36efLowhXnG3QYJU2+f72HN6dOYiCYhTs=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=JakpBCsZmcXHC1ydFe/OyKQO4DwIpkQ0WXiv3BfV33fXqkM1TGmx5ktiUpNhqKxTe imFDT4d/C0Lz829F83z5aYBTZZN25nAekHQ//6EgD4liQkQTYdYdxi3+omTkk1Ct6R 1C2FuxTaqSuQxLK7WEcCN330FeQlYTk1CElP7fs8= X-Riseup-User-ID: 7E460CCE98A41A897D47647987215A70D1E819A3ADA4F092FF7EE41E154C6DB4 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews2.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4MLqMW2Lrrz1yPx; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 13:37:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <705360e1-f7d3-7c1a-64af-bf1f29afaf80@riseup.net> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2022 10:37:40 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/tests: Change "igt_" prefix to "test_drm_" To: Maxime Ripard , =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=c5=82_Winiarski?= Cc: David Gow , siqueirajordao@riseup.net, magalilemes00@gmail.com, David Airlie , tales.aparecida@gmail.com, Arthur Grillo , brendanhiggins@google.com, Javier Martinez Canillas , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mwen@igalia.com, dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com, =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRXhww7NzaXRv?= , Isabella Basso , andrealmeid@riseup.net References: <20220901124210.591994-1-mairacanal@riseup.net> <20220901124210.591994-2-mairacanal@riseup.net> <20220901125530.b56s4zisnkfuigvc@houat> <04aeba53-793c-3196-3137-915f0640dc2a@riseup.net> <87h71qfbi9.fsf@intel.com> <20220902123400.5ljgc7z6zw34d64m@houat> <87mtbidj3b.fsf@intel.com> <20220902133828.ufwp6bgzd37yu6bv@nostramo.hardline.pl> <20220905121000.m2xppgjlfjlmppfr@houat> Content-Language: en-US From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ma=c3=adra_Canal?= In-Reply-To: <20220905121000.m2xppgjlfjlmppfr@houat> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 9/5/22 09:10, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 03:38:28PM +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 04:03:20PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2022, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 11:04:14AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2022, Maíra Canal 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> Okay, so I'm just going to explain what I mean, but say "whatever" right >>> after and move on. >>> >>> For example, drm_buddy_test.c includes drm_buddy.h so with the igt_ -> >>> drm_ rename none of the test functions may clash with the drm_buddy_ >>> prefixed existing functions. Ditto for all tests similarly. >>> >>> For example drm_buddy_alloc_range() as a name sounds like something that >>> allocs a range, not something that tests range allocation. On the other >>> hand, you have drm_buddy_alloc_blocks() which is actually a real >>> drm_buddy function, not a test. What would you call a test that tests >>> that? Here, we end up with names that are all prefixed drm_buddy and you >>> won't know what's the actual function and what's the test unless you >>> look it up. >>> >>> I use code tagging that I can use for finding and completing >>> e.g. functions. Currently I have the following completions, for >>> igt_buddy_ and drm_buddy_, respectively: >>> >>> Possible completions are: >>> igt_buddy_alloc_limit igt_buddy_alloc_optimistic igt_buddy_alloc_pathological >>> igt_buddy_alloc_pessimistic igt_buddy_alloc_range igt_buddy_alloc_smoke >>> >>> Possible completions are: >>> drm_buddy_alloc_blocks drm_buddy_block drm_buddy_block_is_allocated drm_buddy_block_is_free >>> drm_buddy_block_is_split drm_buddy_block_offset drm_buddy_block_order drm_buddy_block_print >>> drm_buddy_block_size drm_buddy_block_state drm_buddy_block_trim drm_buddy_fini >>> drm_buddy_free_block drm_buddy_free_list drm_buddy_init drm_buddy_init_test >>> drm_buddy_module_exit drm_buddy_module_init drm_buddy_print >>> >>> With the patch at hand, they'll all be lumped under drm_buddy_ >>> completions, and some of them will be actual drm buddy functions and >>> some not. >>> >>> I just find it a very odd convention to name the tests in a way that's >>> indistinguishable from the real things. Even *within* drm_buddy_test.c >>> where you read the test code. Because currently you do have calls to >>> igt_buddy_ prefixed functions from other igt_buddy_ prefixed functions, >>> along with the drm_buddy_ prefixed calls. I think it's just going to be >>> a mess. >>> >>> /rant >>> >>> Whatever. Moving on. >> >> KUnit docs [1] state: >> https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kunit/style.html#test-cases >> "As tests are themselves functions, their names cannot conflict with other >> C identifiers in the kernel. This may require some creative naming." >> And give examples of names. But this should be local to individual test suite - >> as long as the test is readable, and the name describes what it is testing, we >> should be fine. We don't even need to pass drm_* prefix, as this convention is >> expected for test suites, not test cases [2]. >> >> Having said that - I do believe that igt_* prefix don't belong here (which is >> why I'm progressively trying to get rid of in the patches that refactor some of >> the tests). >> I agree with Jani - can we take it on a case-by-case basis? >> If the test name is too similar to the function that it is testing, we could go >> with one of the following (taking igt_buddy_alloc_limit as example): >> drm_buddy_test_alloc_limit >> test_drm_buddy_alloc_limit >> buddy_test_alloc_limit >> test_buddy_alloc_limit > > We also have drm_test_buddy_alloc_limit, or drm_buddy_test_alloc_limit I will send a v3 with the "drm_test" prefix, as it seems we can get a bit more consensus with this one. Best Regards, - Maíra Canal > > Both would be fine for me, with a small preference for the former, which > should also address Jani's concerns? > >> And either of those is fine in my opinion (I'd personally go with >> test_buddy_alloc_limit in this case). >> We don't really need a DRM-wide (or worse, kernel wide) convention for test case >> names (it's only really needed for test suites). > > Sure we do. kunit.py can take some filters too. Being able to only run > DRM tests with a single filter is super convenient, and if we fail to > provide a consistent naming we're pretty much sure people running the > tests are going to miss some. > > Maxime From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (gabe.freedesktop.org [131.252.210.177]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8475CECAAD3 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 13:38:10 +0000 (UTC) Received: from gabe.freedesktop.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5DF1E10E3A7; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 13:38:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mx0.riseup.net (mx0.riseup.net [198.252.153.6]) by gabe.freedesktop.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 760E610E3A4 for ; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 13:37:49 +0000 (UTC) Received: from fews2.riseup.net (fews2-pn.riseup.net [10.0.1.84]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "mail.riseup.net", Issuer "R3" (not verified)) by mx0.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4MLqMc5knRz9s74; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 13:37:48 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=riseup.net; s=squak; t=1662385069; bh=TB3di8dRlX36efLowhXnG3QYJU2+f72HN6dOYiCYhTs=; h=Date:Subject:To:Cc:References:From:In-Reply-To:From; b=JakpBCsZmcXHC1ydFe/OyKQO4DwIpkQ0WXiv3BfV33fXqkM1TGmx5ktiUpNhqKxTe imFDT4d/C0Lz829F83z5aYBTZZN25nAekHQ//6EgD4liQkQTYdYdxi3+omTkk1Ct6R 1C2FuxTaqSuQxLK7WEcCN330FeQlYTk1CElP7fs8= X-Riseup-User-ID: 7E460CCE98A41A897D47647987215A70D1E819A3ADA4F092FF7EE41E154C6DB4 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by fews2.riseup.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4MLqMW2Lrrz1yPx; Mon, 5 Sep 2022 13:37:43 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <705360e1-f7d3-7c1a-64af-bf1f29afaf80@riseup.net> Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2022 10:37:40 -0300 MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/tests: Change "igt_" prefix to "test_drm_" To: Maxime Ripard , =?UTF-8?Q?Micha=c5=82_Winiarski?= References: <20220901124210.591994-1-mairacanal@riseup.net> <20220901124210.591994-2-mairacanal@riseup.net> <20220901125530.b56s4zisnkfuigvc@houat> <04aeba53-793c-3196-3137-915f0640dc2a@riseup.net> <87h71qfbi9.fsf@intel.com> <20220902123400.5ljgc7z6zw34d64m@houat> <87mtbidj3b.fsf@intel.com> <20220902133828.ufwp6bgzd37yu6bv@nostramo.hardline.pl> <20220905121000.m2xppgjlfjlmppfr@houat> Content-Language: en-US From: =?UTF-8?Q?Ma=c3=adra_Canal?= In-Reply-To: <20220905121000.m2xppgjlfjlmppfr@houat> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-BeenThere: dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Direct Rendering Infrastructure - Development List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Arthur Grillo , siqueirajordao@riseup.net, magalilemes00@gmail.com, David Airlie , tales.aparecida@gmail.com, brendanhiggins@google.com, Javier Martinez Canillas , dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, mwen@igalia.com, David Gow , =?UTF-8?B?Sm9zw6kgRXhww7NzaXRv?= , Isabella Basso , andrealmeid@riseup.net, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com Errors-To: dri-devel-bounces@lists.freedesktop.org Sender: "dri-devel" On 9/5/22 09:10, Maxime Ripard wrote: > On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 03:38:28PM +0200, Michał Winiarski wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 04:03:20PM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >>> On Fri, 02 Sep 2022, Maxime Ripard wrote: >>>> On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 11:04:14AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote: >>>>> On Thu, 01 Sep 2022, Maíra Canal 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 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> --- >>>>>>>> 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. >>> >>> Okay, so I'm just going to explain what I mean, but say "whatever" right >>> after and move on. >>> >>> For example, drm_buddy_test.c includes drm_buddy.h so with the igt_ -> >>> drm_ rename none of the test functions may clash with the drm_buddy_ >>> prefixed existing functions. Ditto for all tests similarly. >>> >>> For example drm_buddy_alloc_range() as a name sounds like something that >>> allocs a range, not something that tests range allocation. On the other >>> hand, you have drm_buddy_alloc_blocks() which is actually a real >>> drm_buddy function, not a test. What would you call a test that tests >>> that? Here, we end up with names that are all prefixed drm_buddy and you >>> won't know what's the actual function and what's the test unless you >>> look it up. >>> >>> I use code tagging that I can use for finding and completing >>> e.g. functions. Currently I have the following completions, for >>> igt_buddy_ and drm_buddy_, respectively: >>> >>> Possible completions are: >>> igt_buddy_alloc_limit igt_buddy_alloc_optimistic igt_buddy_alloc_pathological >>> igt_buddy_alloc_pessimistic igt_buddy_alloc_range igt_buddy_alloc_smoke >>> >>> Possible completions are: >>> drm_buddy_alloc_blocks drm_buddy_block drm_buddy_block_is_allocated drm_buddy_block_is_free >>> drm_buddy_block_is_split drm_buddy_block_offset drm_buddy_block_order drm_buddy_block_print >>> drm_buddy_block_size drm_buddy_block_state drm_buddy_block_trim drm_buddy_fini >>> drm_buddy_free_block drm_buddy_free_list drm_buddy_init drm_buddy_init_test >>> drm_buddy_module_exit drm_buddy_module_init drm_buddy_print >>> >>> With the patch at hand, they'll all be lumped under drm_buddy_ >>> completions, and some of them will be actual drm buddy functions and >>> some not. >>> >>> I just find it a very odd convention to name the tests in a way that's >>> indistinguishable from the real things. Even *within* drm_buddy_test.c >>> where you read the test code. Because currently you do have calls to >>> igt_buddy_ prefixed functions from other igt_buddy_ prefixed functions, >>> along with the drm_buddy_ prefixed calls. I think it's just going to be >>> a mess. >>> >>> /rant >>> >>> Whatever. Moving on. >> >> KUnit docs [1] state: >> https://docs.kernel.org/dev-tools/kunit/style.html#test-cases >> "As tests are themselves functions, their names cannot conflict with other >> C identifiers in the kernel. This may require some creative naming." >> And give examples of names. But this should be local to individual test suite - >> as long as the test is readable, and the name describes what it is testing, we >> should be fine. We don't even need to pass drm_* prefix, as this convention is >> expected for test suites, not test cases [2]. >> >> Having said that - I do believe that igt_* prefix don't belong here (which is >> why I'm progressively trying to get rid of in the patches that refactor some of >> the tests). >> I agree with Jani - can we take it on a case-by-case basis? >> If the test name is too similar to the function that it is testing, we could go >> with one of the following (taking igt_buddy_alloc_limit as example): >> drm_buddy_test_alloc_limit >> test_drm_buddy_alloc_limit >> buddy_test_alloc_limit >> test_buddy_alloc_limit > > We also have drm_test_buddy_alloc_limit, or drm_buddy_test_alloc_limit I will send a v3 with the "drm_test" prefix, as it seems we can get a bit more consensus with this one. Best Regards, - Maíra Canal > > Both would be fine for me, with a small preference for the former, which > should also address Jani's concerns? > >> And either of those is fine in my opinion (I'd personally go with >> test_buddy_alloc_limit in this case). >> We don't really need a DRM-wide (or worse, kernel wide) convention for test case >> names (it's only really needed for test suites). > > Sure we do. kunit.py can take some filters too. Being able to only run > DRM tests with a single filter is super convenient, and if we fail to > provide a consistent naming we're pretty much sure people running the > tests are going to miss some. > > Maxime