[LTP] [PATCH] libs: adopt lib* prefix instead of tst_* for libs/

[Petr Vorel]

> Hi Andrea, All,

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2026 at 8:59 PM Andrea Cervesato <andrea.cervesato@suse.com>
> wrote:

> > Hi!

> > I generally agree with this approach, but I have the feeling we are
> > mixing naming a bit here. For instance, we have headers like ipcmsg.h
> > that has no functions starting with tst_*, while tst_numa.h does. Also,
> > the tst_* prefix for files has the clear goal to state we are importing
> > some LTP functionalities inside the tests code.

> > Said so, I would rather rename all LTP libraries as tst_*.h and to
> > rename functions inside them with tst_* prefix. In this way, we know
> > at the very first look, when a library is imported from LTP and not
> > from other sources.

'tst_' prefix is only for *new* C API. That's why ipcmsg.h/libs/ipc/libipc.c
don't use it. I would prefer to keep that way (not use 'tst_' for legacy C API
library source).

That's why I quite like Li's approach (I'm ok if libs/ sources' headers will
have 'lib' prefix instead of 'tst_'), although I liked more
libs/sigwait/sigwait.c than libs/sigwait/libsigwait.c.

> I indeed thought about all use tst_* for those global header files.
> But to distinguish lib/ with libs/ I finally feel that libs/ is not the
> core LTP API
> and sometimes built only when they are needed, if we rename all these
> header file with tst_* that will mislead people to find the *.c file in
> lib/, which
> is not the right place.

> So in my patch, keep define tst_* only for the core LTP API, and lib* prefix
> reserve for libs/ that will be clear at a glance.

+1

> Or, if go with tst_*.h for all (and rename functions with tst_*), I think
> the libs/ should be merged into lib/.

I don't think this would be good. It would require also changing a build system,
touch too many files. And I don't even see a benefit for a such change.

Kind regards,
Petr

> @Cyril, Petr, any comments?

I also wonder Cyril's and Jan's opinion.

Kind regards,
Petr