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

Maxime Ripard
2022-09-02T08:08:55Z

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1487 bytes --]

On Thu, Sep 01, 2022 at 07:33:18PM -0300, 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 <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_"?
>
> 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.

Yes, using drm as our prefix everywhere seems like a good idea :)

Maxime

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