Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20221001002638.2881842-1-dlatypov@google.com> <20221001002638.2881842-4-dlatypov@google.com>
 <CANiq72=H-HkE6FQrPFC9s83VW9sPPQbiZ7+iCqjrsvUkkW0MVw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CANiq72=H-HkE6FQrPFC9s83VW9sPPQbiZ7+iCqjrsvUkkW0MVw@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com>
Date:   Sat, 1 Oct 2022 10:48:33 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGS_qxrJJTdJwXej0mEyyX2vpP__D-UBB8=zvxccMeROy=B3tw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] kunit: eliminate KUNIT_INIT_*_ASSERT_STRUCT macros
To:     Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com>
Cc:     brendanhiggins@google.com, davidgow@google.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kunit-dev@googlegroups.com,
        linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 3:12 AM Miguel Ojeda
<miguel.ojeda.sandonis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 1, 2022 at 2:26 AM Daniel Latypov <dlatypov@google.com> wrote:
> >
> > But we can work around this with the following generic macro
> >   #define KUNIT_INIT_ASSERT(initializers...) { initializers }
>
> Is it intended to be internal, right? Should be prefixed by `_` then?

Yeah, 100% internal.

We don't have such a convention in KUnit yet, see the discussion in
https://lore.kernel.org/linux-kselftest/CABVgOSmcheQvBRKqc-0ftmbthx=EReoQ-910QV0QMNuxLWjTUQ@mail.gmail.com/T/#u
I'd be personally fine with _s, but this patch just tried to keep
things consistent with what was there before.

Daniel