[PATCH] acpi: checksum: rename the test name from "checksum to "acpichecksum"

[Alex Hung]

On 04/26/2013 03:22 AM, Colin Ian King wrote:
> On 25/04/13 03:43, Alex Hung wrote:
>> The name "checksum" is too generic. The rename can help a user to
>> understand
>> that the test targets ACPI tables and verifies the table checksum.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Alex Hung <alex.hung at canonical.com>
>> ---
>>   src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c |   19 ++++++++++---------
>>   1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c b/src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c
>> index e56ca66..a8ec15c 100644
>> --- a/src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c
>> +++ b/src/acpi/checksum/checksum.c
>> @@ -26,7 +26,7 @@
>>
>>   #include "fwts.h"
>>
>> -static void checksum_rsdp(fwts_framework *fw, fwts_acpi_table_info
>> *table)
>> +static void acpi_checksum_rsdp(fwts_framework *fw,
>> fwts_acpi_table_info *table)
>>   {
>>       uint8_t checksum;
>>       fwts_acpi_table_rsdp *rsdp = (fwts_acpi_table_rsdp*)table->data;
>> @@ -89,7 +89,7 @@ static void checksum_rsdp(fwts_framework *fw,
>> fwts_acpi_table_info *table)
>>
>>   }
>>
>> -static int checksum_scan_tables(fwts_framework *fw)
>> +static int acpi_checksum_scan_tables(fwts_framework *fw)
>>   {
>>       int i;
>>
>> @@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ static int checksum_scan_tables(fwts_framework *fw)
>>           hdr = (fwts_acpi_table_header*)table->data;
>>
>>           if (strcmp("RSDP", table->name) == 0) {
>> -            checksum_rsdp(fw, table);
>> +            acpi_checksum_rsdp(fw, table);
>>               continue;
>>           }
>>
>> @@ -140,19 +140,20 @@ static int checksum_scan_tables(fwts_framework *fw)
>>       return FWTS_OK;
>>   }
>>
>> -static int checksum_test1(fwts_framework *fw)
>> +static int acpi_checksum_test1(fwts_framework *fw)
>>   {
>> -    return checksum_scan_tables(fw);
>> +    return acpi_checksum_scan_tables(fw);
>>   }
>>
>> -static fwts_framework_minor_test checksum_tests[] = {
>> -    { checksum_test1, "Check ACPI table checksums." },
>> +static fwts_framework_minor_test acpi_checksum_tests[] = {
>> +    { acpi_checksum_test1, "Check ACPI table checksums." },
>>       { NULL, NULL }
>>   };
>>
>>   static fwts_framework_ops checksum_ops = {
>>       .description = "Check ACPI table checksum.",
>> -    .minor_tests = checksum_tests
>> +    .minor_tests = acpi_checksum_tests
>>   };
>>
>> -FWTS_REGISTER("checksum", &checksum_ops, FWTS_TEST_ANYTIME,
>> FWTS_FLAG_BATCH);
>> +FWTS_REGISTER("acpichecksum", &checksum_ops,
>> +        FWTS_TEST_ANYTIME, FWTS_FLAG_BATCH);
>>
>
> I've been thinking about this all day.  Indeed it is a good idea for us
> to name the tests in a meaningful way but we also need to consider
> ensuring we don't cause too much pain for users who are used to the
> current test naming scheme.
>
> I think that we should re-examine all the current tests and see if any
> more require renaming and *then* apply these changes in one go rather
> than making the changes in a piecemeal fashion.
>
> +1 for renaming this test, but also:
> 1)  We need the fwts-test renamed
> 2)  Can this wait until we have re-examined all the current test names.
>
> Colin
>

Thanks Colin. That's a good idea. Let's examine all names and decide a 
naming convention first. :)

Cheers,
Alex Hung