Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-157377-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1 as permitted sender) client-ip=2604:1380:45d1:ec00::1;
Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2024 10:18:57 -0700
From: Oliver Upton <oliver.upton@linux.dev>
To: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@google.com>
Cc: Andrew Jones <ajones@ventanamicro.com>,
	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>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] KVM: selftests: Add 'malloc' failure check in
 test_vmx_nested_state
Message-ID: <Zik_Aat5JJtWk0AM@linux.dev>
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>
 <ZikcgIhyRbz5APPZ@google.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <ZikcgIhyRbz5APPZ@google.com>

Hey,

On Wed, Apr 24, 2024 at 07:51:44AM -0700, Sean Christopherson wrote:
> 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 despise brevity in tests, so my strong preference is to use some form
of 'namespaced' helper. Perhaps others have better memory than
I do, but I'm quick to forget the selftests library and find the more
verbose / obvious function names helpful for jogging my memory.

> > 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.

Ooo, don't leave me out on the bikeshedding! How about TEST_MALLOC() /
TEST_CALLOC(). It is vaguely similar to TEST_ASSERT(), which I'd hope
would give the impression that an assertion is lurking below.

-- 
Thanks,
Oliver