From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Cyril Hrubis Date: Wed, 9 Oct 2019 13:48:54 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command In-Reply-To: <64bb824c-d577-86e5-bfa5-17a8cfbf4174@jv-coder.de> References: <20191009061619.48677-1-lkml@jv-coder.de> <20191009061619.48677-3-lkml@jv-coder.de> <20191009113919.GB7561@rei.lan> <64bb824c-d577-86e5-bfa5-17a8cfbf4174@jv-coder.de> Message-ID: <20191009114854.GC7561@rei.lan> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi! > > Can we keep the name to be tst_require_root() please? > > > > Historically this function has been always named like this in LTP. > > > Not a very good argument for two reasons: > 1. The function was internal to the library, so no one (except for > library developers) It has been in a public API for the old library for more than ten years before the new library was written. > 2. I wanted to make it consistent with other functions, that do similar > stuff like > ???? tst_test_drivers and tst_test_cmds. Both also call tst_brk in case > of unsuccessful tests. Well I do not like these names either, it's less descriptive that it would have been with tst_require_cmds and tst_require_drivers, so if anything I would be for renaming the tst_test_* ones. -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz