[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5114CE00.6050307@ozlabs.org>
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 18:05:52 +0800
From: Jeremy Kerr <jk@...abs.org>
To: Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
CC: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-efi@...r.kernel.org,
Matt Fleming <matt.fleming@...el.com>,
Lingzhu Xiang <lxiang@...hat.com>,
Dave Young <dyoung@...hat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3 v3] selftests: Add tests for efivarfs
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for taking a look at these.
>> @@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
>> -TARGETS = breakpoints kcmp mqueue vm cpu-hotplug memory-hotplug
>> +TARGETS = breakpoints kcmp mqueue vm cpu-hotplug memory-hotplug efivarfs
>
> bah. This sort of Makefile construct is a wonderful source of patch
> rejects and fixups. I'll covert this to
>
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/Makefile~a
> +++ a/tools/testing/selftests/Makefile
> @@ -1,4 +1,11 @@
> -TARGETS = breakpoints epoll kcmp mqueue vm cpu-hotplug memory-hotplug efivarfs
> +TARGETS = breakpoints
> +TARGETS += epoll
> +TARGETS += kcmp
> +TARGETS += mqueue
> +TARGETS += vm
> +TARGETS += cpu-hotplug
> +TARGETS += memory-hotplug
> +TARGETS += efivarfs
Much better, thanks. I'd already had a collision with the epoll tests...
> I'll do this for now:
>
> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/efivarfs/Makefile~selftests-add-tests-for-efivarfs-fix
> +++ a/tools/testing/selftests/efivarfs/Makefile
> @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ test_objs = open-unlink
> all: $(test_objs)
>
> run_tests: all
> - @./efivarfs.sh || echo "efivarfs selftests: [FAIL]"
> + @/bin/sh ./efivarfs.sh || echo "efivarfs selftests: [FAIL]"
>
> clean:
> rm -f $(test_objs)
>
> but I'm not sure I did it right :(
efivarfs.sh requires bash currently, so we'll need to call this explicitly:
+ @/bin/bash ./efivarfs.sh || echo "efivarfs selftests: [FAIL]"
Is this okay?
> The general ruleset for selftests is: do as much as you can if you're not
> root and don't take too long and don't break the build on any
> architecture and don't cause the top-level "make run_tests" to fail if
> your feature is unconfigured.
Ah, good stuff to know. I'll send a patch adding this info to
Documentation/ too.
> Does this code pass all that?
It should, yes:
* all test requires root at present, as all efivarfs files are only
writable by root
* the built binaries doesn't use anything more than basic C, so should
build fine wherever we have gcc.
* efivarfs.sh will skip all tests if efivarfs is not mounted
However, the tests expose a bug at the moment, so run_tests will fail.
Matt will have that fixed soon though :)
Cheers,
Jeremy
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists