RE: [PATCH v2 16/17] kernel/sysctl-test: Add null pointer test for sysctl.c:proc_dointvec()

[<Tim.Bird@sony.com>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Greg KH 
> 
> On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:25PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > From: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@google.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@google.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.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.
 -- Tim