Re: common KUnit Kconfig and file naming (was: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions)

2020-06-19 Thread Brendan Higgins
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 11:39 PM David Gow wrote: [...] > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 4:28 AM Brendan Higgins > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:21 PM David Gow wrote: > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:40 PM Alan Maguire > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, David Gow

Re: common KUnit Kconfig and file naming (was: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions)

2020-06-19 Thread David Gow
I'm in the process of writing up some documentation for this now. I hope to post a draft soon, but here's the overview of what's going in it: - Test filenames should be _kunit.c - (If the suite name is too long/namespaced, the source filename may have prefixes removed, so long as the module

Re: common KUnit Kconfig and file naming (was: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions)

2020-06-18 Thread Kees Cook
On Thu, Jun 18, 2020 at 01:27:55PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote: > I am cool with changing *-test.c to *-kunit.c. The *-test.c was a hold I am fine with basically any decision as long as there's a single naming convention, *except* for this part. Dashes in source files creates confusion for

Re: common KUnit Kconfig and file naming (was: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions)

2020-06-18 Thread Brendan Higgins
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 9:21 PM David Gow wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:40 PM Alan Maguire wrote: > > > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, David Gow wrote: > > > > > CONFIG_PM_QOS_KUNIT_TESTOn Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 1:48 AM Kees Cook > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 02:51:17PM

Re: common KUnit Kconfig and file naming (was: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions)

2020-06-16 Thread David Gow
On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 5:40 PM Alan Maguire wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, David Gow wrote: > > > CONFIG_PM_QOS_KUNIT_TESTOn Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 1:48 AM Kees Cook > > wrote: > > > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 02:51:17PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > > > > Yeah, _KUNIT_TEST was what we've sort-of

Re: common KUnit Kconfig and file naming (was: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions)

2020-06-16 Thread Alan Maguire
On Tue, 16 Jun 2020, David Gow wrote: > CONFIG_PM_QOS_KUNIT_TESTOn Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 1:48 AM Kees Cook > wrote: > > > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 02:51:17PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > > > Yeah, _KUNIT_TEST was what we've sort-of implicitly decided on for > > > config names, but the documentation

Re: common KUnit Kconfig and file naming (was: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions)

2020-06-16 Thread David Gow
CONFIG_PM_QOS_KUNIT_TESTOn Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 1:48 AM Kees Cook wrote: > > On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 02:51:17PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > > Yeah, _KUNIT_TEST was what we've sort-of implicitly decided on for > > config names, but the documentation does need to happen. > > That works for me. It

common KUnit Kconfig and file naming (was: Re: [PATCH] lib: kunit_test_overflow: add KUnit test of check_*_overflow functions)

2020-06-14 Thread Kees Cook
On Sat, Jun 13, 2020 at 02:51:17PM +0800, David Gow wrote: > Yeah, _KUNIT_TEST was what we've sort-of implicitly decided on for > config names, but the documentation does need to happen. That works for me. It still feels redundant, but all I really want is a standard name. :) > We haven't put as