On 11/06/2018 06:28 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > On Fri, Nov 2, 2018 at 11:44 AM Shuah Khan <sh...@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On 10/23/2018 05:57 PM, Brendan Higgins wrote: > <snip> >>> + * Example: >>> + * >>> + * .. code-block:: c >>> + * >>> + * void add_test_basic(struct test *test) >>> + * { >>> + * TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 1, add(1, 0)); >>> + * TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 2, add(1, 1)); >>> + * TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, 0, add(-1, 1)); >>> + * TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, INT_MAX, add(0, INT_MAX)); >>> + * TEST_EXPECT_EQ(test, -1, add(INT_MAX, INT_MIN)); >>> + * } >>> + * >>> + * static struct test_case example_test_cases[] = { >>> + * TEST_CASE(add_test_basic), >>> + * {}, >>> + * }; >>> + * >>> + */ >>> +struct test_case { >>> + void (*run_case)(struct test *test); >>> + const char name[256]; >>> + >>> + /* private: internal use only. */ >>> + bool success; >>> +}; >>> + >> >> Introducing a prefix kunit_* might be a good idea for the API. >> This comment applies to the rest of patches as well. > > What about kunit_* instead of test_* and kmock_* instead of mock_*? > Does that seem reasonable? >
kunit_* would work well. thanks, -- Shuah _______________________________________________ dri-devel mailing list dri-devel@lists.freedesktop.org https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/dri-devel