Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-157127-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.80.249 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.80.249;
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 07:51:44 -0700
In-Reply-To: <20240424-e31c64bda7872b0be52e4c16@orel>
Precedence: bulk
Mime-Version: 1.0
References: <20240423073952.2001989-1-chentao@kylinos.cn> <878bf83c-cd5b-48d0-8b4e-77223f1806dc@web.de>
 <ZifMAWn32tZBQHs0@google.com> <20240423-0db9024011213dcffe815c5c@orel>
 <ZigI48_cI7Twb9gD@google.com> <20240424-e31c64bda7872b0be52e4c16@orel>
Message-ID: <ZikcgIhyRbz5APPZ@google.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Add 'malloc' failure check in test_vmx_nested_state
From: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
To: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>
Cc: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>, Kunwu Chan <chentao@kylinos.cn>, 
	linux-kselftest@vger.kernel.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, 
	kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org, 
	Muhammad Usama Anjum <usama.anjum@collabora.com>, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, 
	Shuah Khan <shuah@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, 
	Kunwu Chan <kunwu.chan@hotmail.com>, Anup Patel <anup@brainfault.org>, 
	Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>, Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2024 at 12:15:47PM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> ...
> > I almost wonder if we should just pick a prefix that's less obviously connected
> > to KVM and/or selftests, but unique and short.
> >
> 
> How about kvmsft_ ? It's based on the ksft_ prefix of kselftest.h. Maybe
> it's too close to ksft though and would be confusing when using both in
> the same test?

I would prefer something short, and for whatever reason I have a mental block
with ksft.  I always read it as "k soft", which is completely nonsensical :-)

> I'm not a huge fan of capital letters, but we could also do something like
> MALLOC()/CALLOC().

Hmm, I'm not usually a fan either, but that could actually work quite well in this
case.  It would be quite intuitive, easy to visually parse whereas tmalloc() vs
malloc() kinda looks like a typo, and would more clearly communicate that they're
macros.