From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com (us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com [216.205.24.124]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.subspace.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3869F2FA1 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 20:39:15 +0000 (UTC) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1619123954; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=cNpLvi6EdAaudYQUjNEEJ6bmi8/lRMsChihQZX3u/nI=; b=XhkJYWTkqcxxlQ54jo30MEByHjL9+LsOw0/xL8b0NrQLy8frWwmgtZGG5xCXLcr8v6uBsJ P8Rj+W6WSlOmPIO+8RLyE+aYrGId/cgsWGGysVAKn4g81DqKpVf5J+8CiCVvwcxmId6vsh afPNs4noVn3vV6bifBdADpJsaERx4EI= Received: from mail-qk1-f198.google.com (mail-qk1-f198.google.com [209.85.222.198]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-189-a_CS7wlUOyGgHTbPx6cTLA-1; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:39:10 -0400 X-MC-Unique: a_CS7wlUOyGgHTbPx6cTLA-1 Received: by mail-qk1-f198.google.com with SMTP id t126-20020a37aa840000b02902e3c5b3abeaso10022461qke.10 for ; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:39:10 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=cNpLvi6EdAaudYQUjNEEJ6bmi8/lRMsChihQZX3u/nI=; b=KvZsXVMMkRybAFji13whr9kHCk/4s1fXNhojphczsDNQyHMTWTgXONVusAWZZLUrl7 QFReTxHG8dRZVZB12loUhhg0W0Eunual02zJf+pHaLI7OZq/BDlIyO+gEUOfp8BhAEUr LOZvp+Q/kiN+Vn7a7D2FkeswFqHsE7RHKyprZ1+mn3Rb5w4ec5LuiBbUKrNGf+2MN8Nq QTz7oijBXGVdimrsRcIpgR1/tiHNU8wqbmGeKKsQX75bY30LourRk80uPAxMDmjH69GM LgcJ9hFbGlZq+cqw2prSLlb/cQtAFg7yahUqRQvN0tT12L40HgDs2d8re7yZI/Y2e7hK ziZA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531FMTiK+zWSU1GqDdsv/n4+F9BpU7duZaQzLSNS1Ej3ifC8bege QW0AAoX9iwsqZzp+tSDkzECjW+w+OlM6M/hBoWRLzWpTTEJM5c2GGGHbn1MqViCv/vXhJ9VdRC5 qQHctWjghc6O973C9JxGhUhmAaXseJAX3LUeR3y+48GGw9QHXkR0yLALVYo7S+DvO X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e14e:: with SMTP id c14mr617280qvl.36.1619123949797; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:39:09 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxcGeYSvpo24gXWSguEVi9JQ7kiE7Jqh/3hwJUN+VQ7PimQTarKqFfkP4TIFwc1yNxophk9lw== X-Received: by 2002:a0c:e14e:: with SMTP id c14mr617245qvl.36.1619123949525; Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost.localdomain ([2601:184:417f:70c0::42e6]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id x20sm2989311qkf.42.2021.04.22.13.39.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:39:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kunit: Fix formatting of KUNIT tests to meet the standard To: Theodore Ts'o , brendanhiggins@google.com, davidgow@google.com Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org, linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, rafael@kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org, geert@linux-m68k.org, mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com, davem@davemloft.net, broonie@kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org, mptcp@lists.linux.dev References: From: Nico Pache Message-ID: Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:39:07 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 X-Mailing-List: mptcp@lists.linux.dev List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=npache@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US On 4/18/21 3:39 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote: > On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 04:58:03AM -0400, Nico Pache wrote: >> There are few instances of KUNIT tests that are not properly defined. >> This commit focuses on correcting these issues to match the standard >> defined in the Documentation. > The word "standard" seems to be over-stating things. The > documentation currently states, "they _usually_ have config options > ending in ``_KUNIT_TEST'' (emphasis mine). I can imagine that there > might be some useful things we can do from a tooling perspective if we > do standardize things, but if you really want to make it a "standard", > we should first update the manpage to say so, KUNIT Maintainers, should we go ahead and make this the "standard"? As Ted has stated...  consistency with 'grep' is my desired outcome. > and explain why (e.g., > so that we can easily extract out all of the kunit test modules, and > perhaps paint a vision of what tools might be able to do with such a > standard). > > Alternatively, the word "standard" could perhaps be changed to > "convention", which I think more accurately defines how things work at > the moment.Nico Pache (6): > kunit: ASoC: topology: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: software node: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: ext4: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: lib: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > kunit: mptcp: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard > m68k: update configs to match the proper KUNIT syntax > > Also, "adhear" is not the correct spelling; the correct spelling is > "adhere" (from the Latin verb "adhaerere", "to stick", as in "to hold > fast or stick by as if by gluing", which then became "to bind oneself > to the observance of a set of rules or standards or practices"). > > - Ted Whoops... Made that mistake in my v1 and inadvertently copied it over to all the patches. Cheers! -- Nico