From: Kees Cook <keescook@chromium.org>
To: David Gow <davidgow@google.com>
Cc: Vitor Massaru Iha <vitor@massaru.org>,
KUnit Development <kunit-dev@googlegroups.com>,
Shuah Khan <skhan@linuxfoundation.org>,
"open list:KERNEL SELFTEST FRAMEWORK"
<linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@google.com>,
linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org,
linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk
Subject: common KUnit Kconfig and file naming (was: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions)
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 2020 10:48:09 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <202006141005.BA19A9D3@keescook> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CABVgOSnofuJQ_fiCL-8KdKezg3Hnqk3A+X509c4YP_toKeBVBg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 02:51:17PM +0800, David Gow wrote:
> Yeah, _KUNIT_TEST was what we've sort-of implicitly decided on for
> config names, but the documentation does need to happen.
That works for me. It still feels redundant, but all I really want is a
standard name. :)
> We haven't put as much thought into standardising the filenames much, though.
I actually find this to be much more important because it is more
end-user-facing (i.e. in module naming, in build logs, in scripts, on
filesystem, etc -- CONFIG is basically only present during kernel build).
Trying to do any sorting or greping really needs a way to find all the
kunit pieces.
> Both of these are slightly complicated by cases like this where tests
> are being ported from a non-KUnit test to KUnit. There's a small
> argument there for trying to keep the name the same, though personally
> I suspect consistency is more important.
Understood. I think consistency is preferred too, especially since the
driving reason to make this conversions is to gain consistency with the
actual tests themselves.
> Alas, the plans to document test coding style / conventions kept
> getting pre-empted: I'll drag it back up to the top of the to-do list,
> and see if we can't prioritise it. I think we'd hoped to be able to
> catch these in review, but between a bit of forgetfulness and a few
> tests going upstream without our seeing them has made it obvious that
> doesn't work.
>
> Once something's documented (and the suitable bikeshedding has
> subsided), we can consider renaming existing tests if that seems
> worthwhile.
Yes please! :)
> My feeling is we'll go for:
> - Kconfig name: ~_KUNIT_TEST
As mentioned, I'm fine with this, but prefer ~_KUNIT
> - filename: ~-test.c
I really don't like this. Several reasons reasons:
- it does not distinguish it from other tests -- there is no way to
identify kunit tests from non-kunit tests from directory listings,
build log greps, etc.
- the current "common" naming has been with a leading "test", ignoring
kunit, tools/, and samples/:
53 test_*.c
27 *_test.c
19 *[a-z0-9]test.c
19 selftest*.c
16 test-*.c
11 *-test.c
11 test[a-z0-9]*.c
8 *-tests.c
5 *-selftest.c
4 *_test_*.c
1 *_selftest_*.c
1 *_selftests.c
(these counts might be a bit off -- my eyes started to cross while
constructing regexes)
- dashes are converted to _ in module names, leading to some confusion
between .c file and .ko file.
I'd strongly prefer ~_kunit.c, but could live with _kunit_test.c (even
though it's redundant).
> At least for the initial draft documentation, as those seem to be most
> common, but I think a thread on that would probably be the best place
> to add it.
I'm ready! :) (Subject updated)
> This would also be a good opportunity to document the "standard" KUnit
> boilerplate help text in the Kconfig options.
Ah yeah, good idea.
--
Kees Cook
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-06-14 17:48 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 16+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-06-11 21:55 [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions Vitor Massaru Iha
2020-06-12 19:06 ` Brendan Higgins
2020-06-12 22:36 ` Kees Cook
2020-06-13 6:51 ` David Gow
2020-06-14 17:48 ` Kees Cook [this message]
2020-06-16 7:25 ` common KUnit Kconfig and file naming (was: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions) David Gow
2020-06-16 9:40 ` Alan Maguire
2020-06-17 4:20 ` David Gow
2020-06-18 20:27 ` Brendan Higgins
2020-06-19 3:42 ` Kees Cook
2020-06-19 6:39 ` David Gow
2020-06-19 20:12 ` Brendan Higgins
2020-06-15 16:30 ` [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions Vitor Massaru Iha
2020-06-15 18:37 ` Kees Cook
2020-06-13 6:56 ` David Gow
2020-06-15 16:33 ` Vitor Massaru Iha
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=202006141005.BA19A9D3@keescook \
--to=keescook@chromium.org \
--cc=brendanhiggins@google.com \
--cc=davidgow@google.com \
--cc=kunit-dev@googlegroups.com \
--cc=linux-kernel-mentees@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk \
--cc=skhan@linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=vitor@massaru.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).