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

[Brendan Higgins]

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 11:15 AM <Tim.Bird at sony.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Greg KH
> >
> > On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:25PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:
> > > From: Iurii Zaikin <yzaikin at google.com>
> > >
> > > 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 at google.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <brendanhiggins at google.com>
> > > ---
> > >  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?

Cheers