Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/6] kunit: Fix formatting of KUNIT tests to meet the
 standard
To:     Theodore Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu>, brendanhiggins@google.com,
        davidgow@google.com
Cc:     linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, gregkh@linuxfoundation.org,
        linux-ext4@vger.kernel.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org,
        rafael@kernel.org, linux-m68k@vger.kernel.org,
        geert@linux-m68k.org, mathew.j.martineau@linux.intel.com,
        davem@davemloft.net, broonie@kernel.org, skhan@linuxfoundation.org,
        mptcp@lists.linux.dev
References: <cover.1618388989.git.npache@redhat.com>
 <YHyK+5xJEMcDDhVy@mit.edu>
From:   Nico Pache <npache@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <dbe6abeb-0082-e309-1208-9c43c6f127ae@redhat.com>
Date:   Thu, 22 Apr 2021 16:39:07 -0400
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <YHyK+5xJEMcDDhVy@mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Content-Language: en-US
Precedence: bulk

On 4/18/21 3:39 PM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 04:58:03AM -0400, Nico Pache wrote:
>> There are few instances of KUNIT tests that are not properly defined.
>> This commit focuses on correcting these issues to match the standard
>> defined in the Documentation.
> The word "standard" seems to be over-stating things.  The
> documentation currently states, "they _usually_ have config options
> ending in ``_KUNIT_TEST'' (emphasis mine).  I can imagine that there
> might be some useful things we can do from a tooling perspective if we
> do standardize things, but if you really want to make it a "standard",
> we should first update the manpage to say so, 

KUNIT Maintainers, should we go ahead and make this the "standard"?

As Ted has stated...  consistency with 'grep' is my desired outcome.

> and explain why (e.g.,
> so that we can easily extract out all of the kunit test modules, and
> perhaps paint a vision of what tools might be able to do with such a
> standard).
>
> Alternatively, the word "standard" could perhaps be changed to
> "convention", which I think more accurately defines how things work at
> the moment.Nico Pache (6):
>   kunit: ASoC: topology: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard
>   kunit: software node: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard
>   kunit: ext4: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard
>   kunit: lib: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard
>   kunit: mptcp: adhear to KUNIT formatting standard
>   m68k: update configs to match the proper KUNIT syntax
>
> Also, "adhear" is not the correct spelling; the correct spelling is
> "adhere" (from the Latin verb "adhaerere", "to stick", as in "to hold
> fast or stick by as if by gluing", which then became "to bind oneself
> to the observance of a set of rules or standards or practices").
>
>        		       	      	       		 - Ted

Whoops... Made that mistake in my v1 and inadvertently copied it over

to all the patches.


Cheers!

-- Nico