| Message ID | 54A4B174.2010501@sonymobile.com |
|---|---|
| State | Not Applicable, archived |
| Delegated to: | David Miller |
| Headers | show |
On 12/31/2014 07:31 PM, Tim Bird wrote: > On 12/24/2014 08:27 AM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> Add a new make target to enable installing test. This target >> installs test in the kselftest install location and add to the >> kselftest script to run the test. Install target can be run >> only from top level kernel source directory. >> >> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@osg.samsung.com> >> --- >> tools/testing/selftests/size/Makefile | 12 +++++++++++- >> 1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/size/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/size/Makefile >> index 04dc25e..bb7113b 100644 >> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/size/Makefile >> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/size/Makefile >> @@ -1,12 +1,22 @@ >> CC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc >> >> +TEST_STR = ./get_size || echo get_size selftests: [FAIL] >> + >> all: get_size >> >> get_size: get_size.c >> $(CC) -static -ffreestanding -nostartfiles -s $< -o $@ >> >> +install: >> +ifdef INSTALL_KSFT_PATH >> + install ./get_size $(INSTALL_KSFT_PATH) >> + @echo "$(TEST_STR)" >> $(KSELFTEST) >> +else >> + @echo Run make kselftest_install in top level source directory >> +endif >> + >> run_tests: all >> - ./get_size >> + @$(TEST_STR) >> >> clean: >> $(RM) get_size >> > > The install phase is desperately needed for usage of kselftest in > cross-target situations (applicable to almost all embedded). So this > is great stuff. Thanks. > > I worked a bit on isolating the install stuff to a makefile include file. > This allows simplifying some of the sub-level Makefiles a bit, and allowing > control of some of the install and run logic in less places. > > This is still a work in progress, but before I got too far along, I wanted > to post it for people to provide feedback. A couple of problems cropped > up that are worth discussing, IMHO. > > 1) I think it should be a requirement that each test has a single > "main" program to execute to run the tests. If multiple tests are supported > or more flexibility is desired for additional arguments, or that sort of > thing, then that's fine, but the automated script builder should be able > to run just a single program or script to have things work. This also > makes things more consistent. In the case of the firmware test, I created > a single fw_both.sh script to do this, instead of having two separate > blocks in the kselftest.sh script. It is a good goal for individual tests to use a main program to run tests, even though, I would not make it a requirement. I would like to leave that decision up to the individual test writer. > > 2) I've added a CROSS_INSTALL variable, which can call an arbitrary program > to place files on the target system (rather than just calling 'install'). > In my case, I'd use my own 'ttc cp' command, which I can extend as necessary > to put things on a remote machine. This works for a single directory, > but things get dicier with sub-directory trees full of files (like > the ftrace test uses.) > > If additional items need to be installed to the target, then maybe a setup > program should be used, rather than just copying files. > > 3) Some of the scripts were using /bin/bash to execute them, rather > than rely on the interpreter line in the script itself (and having > the script have executable privileges). Is there a reason for this? > I modified a few scripts to be executable, and got rid of the > explicit execution with /bin/bash. Probably no reason other than the choice made by the test writer. It could be cleaned up and made consistent, however, I would see this as a separate enhancement type work that could be done on its own and not include it in the install work. > > The following is just a start... Let me know if this direction looks > OK, and I'll finish this up. The main item to look at is > kselftest.include file. Note that these patches are based on Shuah's > series - but if you want to use these ideas I can rebase them onto > mainline, and break them out per test sub-level like Shuah did. One of the reasons I picked install target approach is to enable the feature by extending the existing run_tests support. This way we will have the feature available quickly. Once that is supported, we can work on evolving to a generic approach to use the include file approach, as the changes you are proposing are based on the the series I sent out, and makes improvements to it. kselftest.include file approach could work for several tests and tests that can't use the generic could add their own install support. I propose evolving to a generic kselftest.include as the second step in evolving the install feature. Can I count on you do the work and update the tests to use kselftest.include, CROSS_INSTALL variable support? thanks, -- Shuah Shuah Khan Sr. Linux Kernel Developer Open Source Innovation Group Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley) shuahkh@osg.samsung.com | (970) 217-8978 -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 01/05/2015 01:28 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: > On 12/31/2014 07:31 PM, Tim Bird wrote: ... >> The install phase is desperately needed for usage of kselftest in >> cross-target situations (applicable to almost all embedded). So this >> is great stuff. > > Thanks. > >> >> I worked a bit on isolating the install stuff to a makefile include file. >> This allows simplifying some of the sub-level Makefiles a bit, and allowing >> control of some of the install and run logic in less places. >> >> This is still a work in progress, but before I got too far along, I wanted >> to post it for people to provide feedback. A couple of problems cropped >> up that are worth discussing, IMHO. >> >> 1) I think it should be a requirement that each test has a single >> "main" program to execute to run the tests. If multiple tests are supported >> or more flexibility is desired for additional arguments, or that sort of >> thing, then that's fine, but the automated script builder should be able >> to run just a single program or script to have things work. This also >> makes things more consistent. In the case of the firmware test, I created >> a single fw_both.sh script to do this, instead of having two separate >> blocks in the kselftest.sh script. > > It is a good goal for individual tests to use a main program to run > tests, even though, I would not make it a requirement. I would like to > leave that decision up to the individual test writer. > OK. It helps to have a single line when trying to isolate RUN_TEST creation into the include file, but there may be other ways to accomplish this. >> >> 2) I've added a CROSS_INSTALL variable, which can call an arbitrary program >> to place files on the target system (rather than just calling 'install'). >> In my case, I'd use my own 'ttc cp' command, which I can extend as necessary >> to put things on a remote machine. This works for a single directory, >> but things get dicier with sub-directory trees full of files (like >> the ftrace test uses.) >> >> If additional items need to be installed to the target, then maybe a setup >> program should be used, rather than just copying files. >> >> 3) Some of the scripts were using /bin/bash to execute them, rather >> than rely on the interpreter line in the script itself (and having >> the script have executable privileges). Is there a reason for this? >> I modified a few scripts to be executable, and got rid of the >> explicit execution with /bin/bash. > > Probably no reason other than the choice made by the test writer. > It could be cleaned up and made consistent, however, I would see > this as a separate enhancement type work that could be done on its > own and not include it in the install work. OK - this was also something that simplified the creation of the RUN_TEST variable in the isolated include file. Also, having the interpreter explicit in the invocation line in the Makefile as well as in the script itself is a bit redundant. >> >> The following is just a start... Let me know if this direction looks >> OK, and I'll finish this up. The main item to look at is >> kselftest.include file. Note that these patches are based on Shuah's >> series - but if you want to use these ideas I can rebase them onto >> mainline, and break them out per test sub-level like Shuah did. > > One of the reasons I picked install target approach is to enable the > feature by extending the existing run_tests support. This way we will > have the feature available quickly. Once that is supported, we can work > on evolving to a generic approach to use the include file approach, as > the changes you are proposing are based on the the series I sent out, > and makes improvements to it. > > kselftest.include file approach could work for several tests and tests > that can't use the generic could add their own install support. > > I propose evolving to a generic kselftest.include as the second step in > evolving the install feature. Can I count on you do the work and update > the tests to use kselftest.include, CROSS_INSTALL variable support? Yes. I'd be happy to evolve it through phases to support the include file and cross-target install feature. Is there anything I can help with in the mean time? Some of the tests require a directory tree of files rather than just a few top-level files (e.g. ftrace). I was thinking about doing some work to tar-ify the needed directories of data files during build, and untar it in the execution area during the install step. Do you want me to propose something there? -- Tim -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe netdev" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
On 01/05/2015 02:56 PM, Tim Bird wrote: > On 01/05/2015 01:28 PM, Shuah Khan wrote: >> On 12/31/2014 07:31 PM, Tim Bird wrote: > ... >>> The install phase is desperately needed for usage of kselftest in >>> cross-target situations (applicable to almost all embedded). So this >>> is great stuff. >> >> Thanks. >> >>> >>> I worked a bit on isolating the install stuff to a makefile include file. >>> This allows simplifying some of the sub-level Makefiles a bit, and allowing >>> control of some of the install and run logic in less places. >>> >>> This is still a work in progress, but before I got too far along, I wanted >>> to post it for people to provide feedback. A couple of problems cropped >>> up that are worth discussing, IMHO. >>> >>> 1) I think it should be a requirement that each test has a single >>> "main" program to execute to run the tests. If multiple tests are supported >>> or more flexibility is desired for additional arguments, or that sort of >>> thing, then that's fine, but the automated script builder should be able >>> to run just a single program or script to have things work. This also >>> makes things more consistent. In the case of the firmware test, I created >>> a single fw_both.sh script to do this, instead of having two separate >>> blocks in the kselftest.sh script. >> >> It is a good goal for individual tests to use a main program to run >> tests, even though, I would not make it a requirement. I would like to >> leave that decision up to the individual test writer. >> > OK. It helps to have a single line when trying to isolate > RUN_TEST creation into the include file, but there may be other > ways to accomplish this. > >>> >>> 2) I've added a CROSS_INSTALL variable, which can call an arbitrary program >>> to place files on the target system (rather than just calling 'install'). >>> In my case, I'd use my own 'ttc cp' command, which I can extend as necessary >>> to put things on a remote machine. This works for a single directory, >>> but things get dicier with sub-directory trees full of files (like >>> the ftrace test uses.) >>> >>> If additional items need to be installed to the target, then maybe a setup >>> program should be used, rather than just copying files. >>> >>> 3) Some of the scripts were using /bin/bash to execute them, rather >>> than rely on the interpreter line in the script itself (and having >>> the script have executable privileges). Is there a reason for this? >>> I modified a few scripts to be executable, and got rid of the >>> explicit execution with /bin/bash. >> >> Probably no reason other than the choice made by the test writer. >> It could be cleaned up and made consistent, however, I would see >> this as a separate enhancement type work that could be done on its >> own and not include it in the install work. > > OK - this was also something that simplified the creation > of the RUN_TEST variable in the isolated include file. > Also, having the interpreter explicit in the invocation line > in the Makefile as well as in the script itself is a bit redundant. >>> >>> The following is just a start... Let me know if this direction looks >>> OK, and I'll finish this up. The main item to look at is >>> kselftest.include file. Note that these patches are based on Shuah's >>> series - but if you want to use these ideas I can rebase them onto >>> mainline, and break them out per test sub-level like Shuah did. >> >> One of the reasons I picked install target approach is to enable the >> feature by extending the existing run_tests support. This way we will >> have the feature available quickly. Once that is supported, we can work >> on evolving to a generic approach to use the include file approach, as >> the changes you are proposing are based on the the series I sent out, >> and makes improvements to it. >> >> kselftest.include file approach could work for several tests and tests >> that can't use the generic could add their own install support. >> >> I propose evolving to a generic kselftest.include as the second step in >> evolving the install feature. Can I count on you do the work and update >> the tests to use kselftest.include, CROSS_INSTALL variable support? > > Yes. I'd be happy to evolve it through phases to support the include > file and cross-target install feature. Thanks that would be great. > > Is there anything I can help with in the mean time? Some of the tests > require a directory tree of files rather than just a few top-level files > (e.g. ftrace). I left out couple of tests in this first round. exec and powerpc. Would you like to add install target support for these tests? That is the next thing on my list of todo and if you would like to get that working, you are welcome to. > > I was thinking about doing some work to tar-ify the needed directories of > data files during build, and untar it in the execution area during the > install step. Do you want me to propose something there? More like generating tar-ball of the install directory for remote installs perhaps. Since install feature is using existing Makefile, user can specify a override install location. Is there a need for, more like use for generating a tar-ball for remote installs? thanks, -- Shuah
diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cpu-hotplug/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/cpu-hotplug/Makefile index c9e15ee..d2e540d 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/cpu-hotplug/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/cpu-hotplug/Makefile @@ -1,18 +1,11 @@ -TEST_STR=/bin/bash ./cpu-on-off-test.sh || echo cpu-hotplug selftests: [FAIL] +TEST_TITLE = cpu-hotplug +TEST_MAIN_PROG = cpu-on-off-test.sh all: -install: -ifdef INSTALL_KSFT_PATH - install ./cpu-on-off-test.sh $(INSTALL_KSFT_PATH)/cpu-on-off-test.sh - @echo "$(TEST_STR)" >> $(KSELFTEST) -else - @echo Run make kselftest_install in top level source directory -endif - -run_tests: - @$(TEST_STR) +include ../kselftest.include +# use -a to get all tests run_full_test: @/bin/bash ./cpu-on-off-test.sh -a || echo "cpu-hotplug selftests: [FAIL]" diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/cpu-hotplug/cpu-on-off-test.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/cpu-hotplug/cpu-on-off-test.sh old mode 100644 new mode 100755 diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/efivarfs/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/efivarfs/Makefile index aaf404b..8d48e9c 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/efivarfs/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/efivarfs/Makefile @@ -1,24 +1,15 @@ -CC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc -CFLAGS = -Wall +TEST_TITLE = efivarfs +TEST_MAIN_PROG = efivarfs.sh -test_objs = open-unlink create-read +CFLAGS = -Wall -TEST_STR = /bin/bash ./efivarfs.sh || echo efivarfs selftests: [FAIL] +TEST_PROGS = open-unlink create-read all: gcc open-unlink.c -o open-unlink gcc create-read.c -o create-read -install: -ifdef INSTALL_KSFT_PATH - install ./efivarfs.sh $(test_objs) $(INSTALL_KSFT_PATH) - @echo "$(TEST_STR)" >> $(KSELFTEST) -else - @echo Run make kselftest_install in top level source directory -endif - -run_tests: all - @$(TEST_STR) +include ../kselftest.include clean: - rm -f $(test_objs) + rm -f $(TEST_PROGS) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/efivarfs/efivarfs.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/efivarfs/efivarfs.sh old mode 100644 new mode 100755 diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/Makefile index 7ac1cf3..b576308 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/Makefile @@ -1,36 +1,14 @@ # Makefile for firmware loading selftests +TEST_MAIN_PROG = fw_both.sh +TEST_TITLE = firmware +TEST_FILES = ./fw_filesystem.sh ./fw_userhelper.sh # No binaries, but make sure arg-less "make" doesn't trigger "run_tests" - -__fw_filesystem: -fw_filesystem = if /bin/sh ./fw_filesystem.sh ; then -fw_filesystem += echo fw_filesystem: ok; -fw_filesystem += else echo fw_filesystem: [FAIL]; -fw_filesystem += fi - -__fw_userhelper: -fw_userhelper = if /bin/sh ./fw_userhelper.sh ; then -fw_userhelper += echo fw_userhelper: ok; -fw_userhelper += else -fw_userhelper += echo fw_userhelper: [FAIL]; -fw_userhelper += fi - all: -install: -ifdef INSTALL_KSFT_PATH - install ./fw_filesystem.sh ./fw_userhelper.sh $(INSTALL_KSFT_PATH) - @echo "$(fw_filesystem)" >> $(KSELFTEST) - @echo "$(fw_userhelper)" >> $(KSELFTEST) -else - @echo Run make kselftest_install in top level source directory -endif - -run_tests: - @$(fw_filesystem) - @$(fw_userhelper) +include ../kselftest.include # Nothing to clean up. clean: -.PHONY: all clean run_tests fw_filesystem fw_userhelper +.PHONY: all clean run_tests diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_both.sh b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_both.sh new file mode 100755 index 0000000..fb7fa8d --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/firmware/fw_both.sh @@ -0,0 +1,13 @@ +#!/bin/sh + +if /bin/sh ./fw_filesystem.sh ; then + echo "fw_filesystem: ok"; +else + echo "fw_filesystem: [FAIL]"; +fi + +if /bin/sh ./fw_userhelper.sh ; then + echo "fw_userhelper: ok"; +else + echo "fw_userhelper: [FAIL]"; +fi diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.include b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.include new file mode 100644 index 0000000..7020a82 --- /dev/null +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/kselftest.include @@ -0,0 +1,26 @@ +# this make include script expects the following variables to be set: +# TEST_MAIN_PROG - a single program to invoke to run the test +# TEST_TITLE - the title of the test +# TEST_FILES - other files that should be copied to the testing directory +# INSTALL_KSFT_PATH - where to put test programs +# KSELFTEST - the name of the generated script (which calls the sub-tests) +# the 'all' target, which makes sure everything is built + +# this file defines the 'install' and 'run_tests' targets + +CC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc +INSTALL = $(CROSS_INSTALL)install +export INSTALL + +TEST_STR = ./$(TEST_MAIN_PROG) || echo $(TEST_TITLE) selftests: [FAIL] + +install: +ifdef INSTALL_KSFT_PATH + $(INSTALL) ./$(TEST_MAIN_PROG) $(TEST_FILES) $(INSTALL_KSFT_PATH) + @echo "$(TEST_STR)" >> $(KSELFTEST) +else + @echo Run make kselftest_install in the top level source directory +endif + +run_tests: all + @$(TEST_STR) diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/size/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/size/Makefile index bb7113b..c88819a 100644 --- a/tools/testing/selftests/size/Makefile +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/size/Makefile @@ -1,22 +1,11 @@ -CC = $(CROSS_COMPILE)gcc +TEST_MAIN_PROG = get_size -TEST_STR = ./get_size || echo get_size selftests: [FAIL] +all: $(TEST_MAIN_PROG) -all: get_size +include ../kselftest.include get_size: get_size.c $(CC) -static -ffreestanding -nostartfiles -s $< -o $@ -install: -ifdef INSTALL_KSFT_PATH - install ./get_size $(INSTALL_KSFT_PATH) - @echo "$(TEST_STR)" >> $(KSELFTEST) -else - @echo Run make kselftest_install in top level source directory -endif - -run_tests: all - @$(TEST_STR) - clean: - $(RM) get_size + $(RM) $(TEST_MAIN_PROG)