On 7/17/24 2:00 PM, Kees Cook wrote:
Based on feedback from Linus[1], change the suggested file naming for
KUnit tests.
Link:
https://lore.kernel.org/lkml/CAHk-=wgim6pNiGTBMhP8Kd3tsB7_JTAuvNJ=XYd3wPvvk=o...@mail.gmail.com/
[1]
Signed-off-by: Kees Cook <[email protected]>
---
Cc: David Gow <[email protected]>
Cc: Brendan Higgins <[email protected]>
Cc: Rae Moar <[email protected]>
Cc: Jonathan Corbet <[email protected]>
Cc: Linus Torvalds <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
---
Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/style.rst | 21 +++++++++++++--------
1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
diff --git a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/style.rst
b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/style.rst
index b6d0d7359f00..761dee3f89ca 100644
--- a/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/style.rst
+++ b/Documentation/dev-tools/kunit/style.rst
@@ -188,15 +188,20 @@ For example, a Kconfig entry might look like:
Test File and Module Names
==========================
-KUnit tests can often be compiled as a module. These modules should be named
-after the test suite, followed by ``_test``. If this is likely to conflict with
-non-KUnit tests, the suffix ``_kunit`` can also be used.
-
-The easiest way of achieving this is to name the file containing the test suite
-``<suite>_test.c`` (or, as above, ``<suite>_kunit.c``). This file should be
-placed next to the code under test.
+Whether a KUnit test is compiled as a separate module or via an
+``#include`` in a core kernel source file, the files should be named
+after the test suite, followed by ``_test``, and live in a ``tests``
I read the previous discussion in the other thread and thought about it.
And ran some kunit tests on baremetal. Delightful! I love this approach.
However! It is rather distinct and not just any old test module. Kunit
has clear conventions and behavior.
As such, I have quickly become convinced that distinct naming is
required here. So I'd like to suggest going with the the suffix:
_kunit
...unconditionally. After all, sometimes you'll end up with that
anyway, so clearly, the _test suffix isn't strictly required.
And given that we are putting these in tests/ , a _test suffix is
redundant.
Yes?
+subdirectory to avoid conflicting with regular modules or the core kernel
+source file names (e.g. for tab-completion). If this would conflict with
+non-KUnit tests, the suffix ``_kunit`` can be used instead.
+
+So for the common case, name the file containing the test suite
+``tests/<suite>_test.c`` (or, if needed, ``tests/<suite>_kunit.c``). The
+``tests`` directory should be placed at the same level as the
+code under test. For example, tests for ``lib/string.c`` live in
+``lib/tests/string_test.c``.
If the suite name contains some or all of the name of the test's parent
directory, it may make sense to modify the source filename to reduce
redundancy.
-For example, a ``foo_firmware`` suite could be in the ``foo/firmware_test.c``
+For example, a ``foo_firmware`` suite could be in the
``tests/foo/firmware_test.c``
file.
thanks,
--
John Hubbard
NVIDIA
