[PATCH v8 0/8] Improve test coverage of TTM

[Karolina Stolarek]

Hi Andi,

On 5.12.2023 16:39, Andi Shyti wrote:
> Hi Karolina and Christian,
> 
>> Karolina Stolarek (8): drm/ttm/tests: Add tests for ttm_resource 
>> and ttm_sys_man drm/ttm/tests: Add tests for ttm_tt drm/ttm/tests:
>>  Add tests for ttm_bo functions drm/ttm/tests: Fix argument in 
>> ttm_tt_kunit_init() drm/ttm/tests: Use an init function from the 
>> helpers lib drm/ttm/tests: Test simple BO creation and validation 
>> drm/ttm/tests: Add tests with mock resource managers drm/ttm/tests:
>> Add test cases dependent on fence signaling
> 
> I see that all these files (and previous patches, as well) don't have
> a consistent prefix system, like kunit_ttm_*. But they all start with
> ttm_*, thread_*, drm_*, etc, which makes it a bit difficult to follow
> and grep through.

I see what you mean. As for ttm_* part, I decided to keep it as it is
based on what was in DRM KUnit tests and helpers lib. Almost all
functions and subtests start with drm_*, and as I'm working on TTM
tests, ttm_* prefix seemed like a natural choice. With thread_*, I could
add ttm_kunit_* in front of it, but not sure what would be the benefit
of doing this.

To be honest, I haven't considered using kunit_* prefix here. In the
code context, it's obvious these are kunit tests, and repeating that
information would make already long function/struct names even longer.

I had a quick glance at other KUnit tests in the kernel and this seems
to be the case, no kunit_* prefixes are used.

> Can we please maintain a consistent prefix system?
> 
> I know it looks bad to come out with it after this series (and 
> previous work too) has been out for several months already. I need to
> say my "mea culpa" as well as I've been in the review loop, as well.

After this series, I plan to send a small one to wrap up my work in this
field. How about adding a TODO to clean these up? I mean, that's
just how I see it, I'd like to hear Christian's thoughts on this.

All the best,
Karolina