From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Petr Vorel Date: Fri, 11 Oct 2019 10:36:14 +0200 Subject: [LTP] [PATCH 2/2] tst_test.sh: Add public tst_test_root command In-Reply-To: <20191009122802.GB7677@rei.lan> 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> <20191009114854.GC7561@rei.lan> <22bc4865-295c-3147-8e26-f258fac472f8@jv-coder.de> <20191009122802.GB7677@rei.lan> Message-ID: <20191011083612.GA1315@dell5510> List-Id: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: ltp@lists.linux.it Hi Cyril, > > >> 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. > > Fair enough, that makes sense. But then we require a change to > > tst_test_* first, > > otherwise the api names are inconsistent. And I'm not sure if changing the > > other functions is really worth it. > Should be easy for tst_test_drivers, that one is only used to implement > the NEEDS_DRIVERS variable. And for the second one, we would have to > change a few tests and one line of documentation, but that would be just > a simple script. I can do that if we agree on the change. > @Jan @Peter what do you think? We already did rename once (0567a8958 shell: Rename s/tst_check_cmds/tst_test_cmds/), but even if we didn't; I'm for renaming tst_test_* to tst_require_* - clear names are important (consistency with names as well). Kind regards, Petr