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=... [1] Signed-off-by: Kees Cook kees@kernel.org
Cc: David Gow davidgow@google.com Cc: Brendan Higgins brendan.higgins@linux.dev Cc: Rae Moar rmoar@google.com Cc: Jonathan Corbet corbet@lwn.net Cc: Linus Torvalds torvalds@linux-foundation.org Cc: linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org Cc: kunit-dev@googlegroups.com Cc: linux-doc@vger.kernel.org
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,