[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <D13EC750.C43E1%dvhart@linux.intel.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 2015 09:31:14 -0700
From: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
To: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
CC: Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>,
<linux-api@...r.kernel.org>, Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>,
Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>,
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] selftest/futex: Update Makefile to use lib.mk
On 3/29/15, 4:49 PM, "Michael Ellerman" <mpe@...erman.id.au> wrote:
>On Fri, 2015-03-27 at 15:17 -0700, Darren Hart wrote:
>> Adapt the futextest Makefiles to use lib.mk macros for RUN_TESTS and
>> EMIT_TESTS. For now, we reuse the run.sh mechanism provided by
>> futextest. This doesn't provide the standard selftests: [PASS|FAIL]
>> format, but the tests provide very similar output already.
>>
>> This results in the run_kselftest.sh script for futexes including a
>> single line: ./run.sh
>>
>> Cc: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@....samsung.com>
>> Cc: linux-api@...r.kernel.org
>> Cc: Ingo Molnar <mingo@...e.hu>
>> Cc: Peter Zijlstra <peterz@...radead.org>
>> Cc: Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>
>> Cc: Davidlohr Bueso <dave@...olabs.net>
>> Cc: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Darren Hart <dvhart@...ux.intel.com>
>> ---
>> tools/testing/selftests/futex/Makefile | 21
>>+++++++++++++++++++++
>> tools/testing/selftests/futex/functional/Makefile | 4 ++++
>> 2 files changed, 25 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/futex/Makefile
>>b/tools/testing/selftests/futex/Makefile
>> index 8629187..6a17529 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/futex/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/futex/Makefile
>> @@ -1,8 +1,29 @@
>> SUBDIRS := functional
>>
>> +TEST_PROGS := run.sh
>> +
>> .PHONY: all clean
>
>lib.mk defines all & clean as PHONY for you.
OK, I can remove this (it was just part of the originals). Shall I resent
the whole series or just a follow-on patch?
>
>> all:
>> for DIR in $(SUBDIRS); do $(MAKE) -C $$DIR $@ ; done
>>
>> +include ../lib.mk
>> +
>> +override define RUN_TESTS
>> + ./run.sh
>> +endef
>
>Do you need to do this override? The standard logic should work AFAICS,
>or do
>you not want the echo logic?
The standard logic wants to run each individual test and uses the echo
logic. My tests have their own pass/fail reporting mechanism. As I run
many options on the same tests and have pretty-printing logic, I prefer to
keep that in a run script rather than in a makefile.
I don't care for the echo logic as a mechanism, I think the reporting
should be part of the test. It also doesn't scale past pass/fail - like
xpass and xfail, for example.
>
>> +override define INSTALL_RULE
>> + mkdir -p $(INSTALL_PATH)
>> + install -t $(INSTALL_PATH) $(TEST_PROGS) $(TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED)
>>$(TEST_FILES)
>> +
>> + @for SUBDIR in $(SUBDIRS); do \
>> + $(MAKE) -C $$SUBDIR INSTALL_PATH=$(INSTALL_PATH)/$$SUBDIR install; \
>> + done;
>> +endef
>> +
>> +override define EMIT_TESTS
>> + echo "./run.sh"
>> +endef
>
>Ditto.
>
>cheers
>
>
>
>
>
--
Darren Hart
Intel Open Source Technology Center
--
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