Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] drm/tests: Change "igt_" prefix to "test_drm_"

Maxime Ripard
2022-09-02T13:29:35Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2199 bytes --]

On Fri, Sep 02, 2022 at 11:04:14AM +0300, Jani Nikula wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2022, Maíra Canal <mairacanal@riseup.net> 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 <mairacanal@riseup.net>
> >>>
> >>> ---
> >>> 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.

Maxime

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 228 bytes --]