mbox series

[0/3] New API: Rename LTP_IPC_PATH -> TST_IPC_PATH

Message ID 20210825080933.12949-1-pvorel@suse.cz
Headers show
Series New API: Rename LTP_IPC_PATH -> TST_IPC_PATH | expand

Message

Petr Vorel Aug. 25, 2021, 8:09 a.m. UTC 
Petr Vorel (3):
  lib: Move IPC_ENV_VAR definition into header
  C API: Rename LTP_IPC_PATH -> TST_IPC_PATH
  shell API: Rename LTP_IPC_PATH -> TST_IPC_PATH

 doc/c-test-api.txt                          |  2 +-
 include/tst_test.h                          |  4 +++-
 lib/tst_test.c                              |  2 --
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/execle/execle01.c |  2 --
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/execve/execve01.c |  2 --
 testcases/kernel/syscalls/prctl/prctl06.h   |  1 -
 testcases/lib/tst_test.sh                   | 12 ++++++------
 7 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)

Comments

Cyril Hrubis Aug. 25, 2021, 9 a.m. UTC | #1 
Hi!
> Petr Vorel (3):
>   lib: Move IPC_ENV_VAR definition into header
>   C API: Rename LTP_IPC_PATH -> TST_IPC_PATH
>   shell API: Rename LTP_IPC_PATH -> TST_IPC_PATH

Is this really a good idea?

As it is it's pretty clear where the environment variable comes from, if
we rename it to TST_IPC_PATH it's not obvious that this has been
exported by LTP test.

Generally things that are visible on the running system tends to be
prefixed with LTP_ or ltp_ rather than TST_ or tst_...
Petr Vorel Aug. 25, 2021, 9:09 a.m. UTC | #2 
> Hi!
> > Petr Vorel (3):
> >   lib: Move IPC_ENV_VAR definition into header
> >   C API: Rename LTP_IPC_PATH -> TST_IPC_PATH
> >   shell API: Rename LTP_IPC_PATH -> TST_IPC_PATH

> Is this really a good idea?

> As it is it's pretty clear where the environment variable comes from, if
> we rename it to TST_IPC_PATH it's not obvious that this has been
> exported by LTP test.
I was thinking about it as well (just forget to write that into cover letter).

> Generally things that are visible on the running system tends to be
> prefixed with LTP_ or ltp_ rather than TST_ or tst_...
Sure. I just thought that LTP_ is for variables which are expected to be set by
user. But let's keep the old name. How about the first commit (cleanup)?

Kind regards,
Petr

[1] https://github.com/linux-test-project/ltp/wiki/User-Guidelines
Cyril Hrubis Aug. 25, 2021, 9:20 a.m. UTC | #3 
Hi!
> > As it is it's pretty clear where the environment variable comes from, if
> > we rename it to TST_IPC_PATH it's not obvious that this has been
> > exported by LTP test.
> I was thinking about it as well (just forget to write that into cover letter).
> 
> > Generally things that are visible on the running system tends to be
> > prefixed with LTP_ or ltp_ rather than TST_ or tst_...
> Sure. I just thought that LTP_ is for variables which are expected to be set by
> user. But let's keep the old name. How about the first commit (cleanup)?

There is no such rule I guess.

It has been case by case, for instance we do have KCONFIG_PATH which we
agreed on with the testing community to be a canonical variable name
that is shared between different frameworks.
Petr Vorel Aug. 25, 2021, 10:23 a.m. UTC | #4 
Hi Cyril, Joerg,

> Hi!
> > > As it is it's pretty clear where the environment variable comes from, if
> > > we rename it to TST_IPC_PATH it's not obvious that this has been
> > > exported by LTP test.
> > I was thinking about it as well (just forget to write that into cover letter).

> > > Generally things that are visible on the running system tends to be
> > > prefixed with LTP_ or ltp_ rather than TST_ or tst_...
> > Sure. I just thought that LTP_ is for variables which are expected to be set by
> > user. But let's keep the old name. How about the first commit (cleanup)?

> There is no such rule I guess.

> It has been case by case, for instance we do have KCONFIG_PATH which we
> agreed on with the testing community to be a canonical variable name
> that is shared between different frameworks.

Ah, thanks for info. Obviously there cannot be rules for everything :).
Thanks both for your time.

Kind regards,
Petr