* [LTP] [RFC] testcases: unify naming for syscall tests ending in digits @ 2026-04-30 15:09 Jinseok Kim 2026-05-04 8:31 ` Cyril Hrubis 0 siblings, 1 reply; 2+ messages in thread From: Jinseok Kim @ 2026-04-30 15:09 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ltp Hi All, I noticed both styles are used for tests of syscalls ending in digits: For example: dup2/dup201.c dup3/dup3_01.c Would it be better to unify them as dup2_01.c / dup3_01.c for consistency? Thanks. -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
* Re: [LTP] [RFC] testcases: unify naming for syscall tests ending in digits 2026-04-30 15:09 [LTP] [RFC] testcases: unify naming for syscall tests ending in digits Jinseok Kim @ 2026-05-04 8:31 ` Cyril Hrubis 0 siblings, 0 replies; 2+ messages in thread From: Cyril Hrubis @ 2026-05-04 8:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Jinseok Kim; +Cc: ltp Hi! > I noticed both styles are used for tests of syscalls ending in digits: > > For example: > dup2/dup201.c > dup3/dup3_01.c > > Would it be better to unify them as dup2_01.c / dup3_01.c for consistency? It makes sense to unify, I'm not sure if it should be dup201.c and dup301.c or dup2_01.c and dup3_02.c. If we want to keep the naming consistent with the rest of LTP we should probably go for dup201.c and dup301.c but it's a bit less readable than the underscore variant. Does anyone else has an opinion here? -- Cyril Hrubis chrubis@suse.cz -- Mailing list info: https://lists.linux.it/listinfo/ltp ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 2+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2026-05-04 8:31 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 2+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2026-04-30 15:09 [LTP] [RFC] testcases: unify naming for syscall tests ending in digits Jinseok Kim 2026-05-04 8:31 ` Cyril Hrubis
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox