linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 02/12] perf test: Shell - only run .sh shell files to skip other files

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <f24b6003-9cc6-36dd-5853-20129acd056e@foss.arm.com>
Date:   Fri, 17 Dec 2021 17:22:55 +0000
From:   Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@...s.arm.com>
To:     Suzuki K Poulose <suzuki.poulose@....com>,
        linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Cc:     coresight@...ts.linaro.org, mathieu.poirier@...aro.org,
        mike.leach@...aro.org, leo.yan@...aro.org,
        inux-perf-users@...r.kernel.org, acme@...nel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/12] perf test: Shell - only run .sh shell files to skip
 other files



On 12/17/21 15:00, Suzuki K Poulose wrote:
> On 15/12/2021 16:03, carsten.haitzler@...s.arm.com wrote:
>> From: Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@....com>
>>
>> You edit your scripts in the tests and end up with your usual shell
>> backup files with ~ or .bak or something else at the end, but then your
>> next perf test run wants to run the backups too. You might also have perf
>> .data files in the directory or something else undesireable as well. 
>> You end
>> up chasing which test is the one you edited and the backup and have to 
>> keep
>> removing all the backup files, so automatically skip any files that are
>> not plain *.sh scripts to limit the time wasted in chasing ghosts.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Carsten Haitzler <carsten.haitzler@....com>
>> ---
>>   tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c | 15 ++++++++++++++-
>>   1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c 
>> b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
>> index ece272b55587..849737ead9fd 100644
>> --- a/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
>> +++ b/tools/perf/tests/builtin-test.c
>> @@ -297,7 +297,20 @@ static const char *shell_test__description(char 
>> *description, size_t size,
>>       for (int __i = 0; __i < nr && (ent = entlist[__i]); __i++)    \
>>           if (!is_directory(base, ent) && \
>>               is_executable_file(base, ent) && \
>> -            ent->d_name[0] != '.')
>> +            ent->d_name[0] != '.' && \
>> +            (shell_file_is_sh(ent->d_name) == 0))
>> +
>> +static int shell_file_is_sh(const char *file)
> 
> nit: In line with the other "helpers", could this be:
> 
> is_shell_file_sh() or even is_shell_script() ?
> 
> Also, for consistency, could this be bool, like the other helpers ?
> 
> i.e., returns true when the condition matches ?
> 
> Suzuki

Sure - I was going for the other pattern where 0 == 
true/matches/succeeds pattern but can use the bool one and give it a 
slight rename.

>> +{
>> +    const char *ext;
>> +
>> +    ext = strchr(file, '.');
>> +    if (!ext)
>> +        return -1;
>> +    if (!strcmp(ext, ".sh"))
>> +        return 0;
>> +    return -1;
>> +}
> 
> 
>>   static const char *shell_tests__dir(char *path, size_t size)
>>   {
>