Re: [PATCH v2 16/17] kernel/sysctl-test: Add null pointer test for sysctl.c:proc_dointvec()

[Greg KH]

On Fri, May 03, 2019 at 04:41:10PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > On Thu, May 02, 2019 at 11:45:43AM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:15 AM <Tim.Bird@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Greg KH
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:25PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > > > > From: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > KUnit tests for initialized data behavior of proc_dointvec that is
> > > > > > explicitly checked in the code. Includes basic parsing tests including
> > > > > > int min/max overflow.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > > > ---
> > > > > >  kernel/Makefile      |   2 +
> > > > > >  kernel/sysctl-test.c | 292
> > > > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > > >  lib/Kconfig.debug    |   6 +
> > > > > >  3 files changed, 300 insertions(+)
> > > > > >  create mode 100644 kernel/sysctl-test.c
> > > > > >
> > > > > > diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
> > > > > > index 6c57e78817dad..c81a8976b6a4b 100644
> > > > > > --- a/kernel/Makefile
> > > > > > +++ b/kernel/Makefile
> > > > > > @@ -112,6 +112,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_IOMEM) += iomem.o
> > > > > >  obj-$(CONFIG_ZONE_DEVICE) += memremap.o
> > > > > >  obj-$(CONFIG_RSEQ) += rseq.o
> > > > > >
> > > > > > +obj-$(CONFIG_SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST) += sysctl-test.o
> > > > >
> > > > > You are going to have to have a "standard" naming scheme for test
> > > > > modules, are you going to recommend "foo-test" over "test-foo"?  If so,
> > > > > that's fine, we should just be consistant and document it somewhere.
> > > > >
> > > > > Personally, I'd prefer "test-foo", but that's just me, naming is hard...
> > > >
> > > > My preference would be "test-foo" as well.  Just my 2 cents.
> > >
> > > I definitely agree we should be consistent. My personal bias
> > > (unsurprisingly) is "foo-test," but this is just because that is the
> > > convention I am used to in other projects I have worked on.
> > >
> > > On an unbiased note, we are currently almost evenly split between the
> > > two conventions with *slight* preference for "foo-test": I ran the two
> > > following grep commands on v5.1-rc7:
> > >
> > > grep -Hrn --exclude-dir="build" -e "config [a-zA-Z_0-9]\+_TEST$" | wc -l
> > > grep -Hrn --exclude-dir="build" -e "config TEST_[a-zA-Z_0-9]\+" | wc -l
> > >
> > > "foo-test" has 36 occurrences.
> > > "test-foo" has 33 occurrences.
> > >
> > > The things I am more concerned about is how this would affect file
> > > naming. If we have a unit test for foo.c, I think foo_test.c is more
> > > consistent with our namespacing conventions. The other thing, is if we
> > > already have a Kconfig symbol called FOO_TEST (or TEST_FOO) what
> > > should we name the KUnit test in this case? FOO_UNIT_TEST?
> > > FOO_KUNIT_TEST, like I did above?
> >
> > Ok, I can live with "foo-test", as you are right, in a directory listing
> > and config option, it makes more sense to add it as a suffix.
> 
> Cool, so just for future reference, if we already have a Kconfig
> symbol called FOO_TEST (or TEST_FOO) what should we name the KUnit
> test in this case? FOO_UNIT_TEST? FOO_KUNIT_TEST, like I did above?

FOO_KUNIT_TEST is fine, I doubt that's going to come up very often.

thanks,

greg k-h