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

[Jani Nikula <jani.nikula@linux.intel.com>]

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.

> 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. For the reason alone
that it pollutes the code tagging tools, mixing actual drm_ types and
functions with unit test functions.

BR,
Jani.



>
> Best Regards,
> - Maíra Canal
>
>> 
>> Maxime
>> 

-- 
Jani Nikula, Intel Open Source Graphics Center