-----Original Message-----
From: Greg KH 

On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 04:01:25PM -0700, Brendan Higgins wrote:

quoted

From: Iurii Zaikin <redacted>

KUnit tests for initialized data behavior of proc_dointvec that is
explicitly checked in the code. Includes basic parsing tests including
int min/max overflow.

Signed-off-by: Iurii Zaikin <redacted>
Signed-off-by: Brendan Higgins <redacted>
---
 kernel/Makefile      |   2 +
 kernel/sysctl-test.c | 292

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

quoted

 lib/Kconfig.debug    |   6 +
 3 files changed, 300 insertions(+)
 create mode 100644 kernel/sysctl-test.c

diff --git a/kernel/Makefile b/kernel/Makefile
index 6c57e78817dad..c81a8976b6a4b 100644
--- a/kernel/Makefile
+++ b/kernel/Makefile

@@ -112,6 +112,8 @@ obj-$(CONFIG_HAS_IOMEM) += iomem.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_ZONE_DEVICE) += memremap.o
 obj-$(CONFIG_RSEQ) += rseq.o

+obj-$(CONFIG_SYSCTL_KUNIT_TEST) += sysctl-test.o

You are going to have to have a "standard" naming scheme for test
modules, are you going to recommend "foo-test" over "test-foo"?  If so,
that's fine, we should just be consistant and document it somewhere.

Personally, I'd prefer "test-foo", but that's just me, naming is hard...

My preference would be "test-foo" as well.  Just my 2 cents.
 -- Tim