Re: [LTP] [PATCH] libs: adopt lib* prefix instead of tst_* for libs/

Li Wang via ltp
2026-01-14T03:04:17Z

> > I'd keep them separate from core library. For non-core libraries, I'd go
> with
> > something more distinct, like "ltp" prefix for file and function names.
>

Thanks!

> > When I look at "libnuma.h" I'd have to think for a bit if this is
> > header from numa-devel
> > or LTP. "ltpnuma.h" seems (to me) more clear that it's not LTP core
> > nor numa-devel.
>

Good point, but the ltp* prefix sounds too serious to me. Anything with
the ltp* prefix inside an LTP makes me think it's critical information.

Perhaps we can use a lightweight name for the extra libs/:

est_*: extra test library
xst_*: extened test library
lst_*: ltp test library

I prefer to use lst_*, which is not only different from tst_*, but also
implies
this is ltp tst_ things.

What do you think? or any better prefix?

> >
> > my 2 cents,
> > Jan
> >
>
> That's exactly why I was suggesting to keep `tst_*`, which is more for
> code-library. The `lib*` prefix is pretty generic and we need something
> more specific for LTP.
>

Indeed.

--
Regards,
Li Wang