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

Jani Nikula
2022-09-02T08:25:24Z

On Fri, 02 Sep 2022, Maxime Ripard <maxime@cerno.tech> wrote:
> 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 :)

Disagreed for reasons explained in other mails.

BR,
Jani.

--
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center