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? _______________________________________________ Linux-nvdimm mailing list Linux-nvdimm@lists.01.org https://lists.01.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-nvdimm