Re: [PATCH 2/2] selftests/timers: change to use shared logic to run and install tests

[Shuah Khan]

On 03/13/2015 09:14 PM, John Stultz wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:57 PM, Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Change the timers Makefile to make use of shared run and install
>> logic in lib.mk. Destructive tests are installed. Regular tests
>> are emited to run_kselftest script to match the run_tests behavior.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Shuah Khan <shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> ---
>>  tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile | 20 +++++++++++---------
>>  1 file changed, 11 insertions(+), 9 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile
>> index 9da3498..61e7284 100644
>> --- a/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile
>> +++ b/tools/testing/selftests/timers/Makefile
>> @@ -7,19 +7,21 @@ bins = posix_timers nanosleep inconsistency-check nsleep-lat raw_skew \
>>         alarmtimer-suspend change_skew skew_consistency clocksource-switch \
>>         leap-a-day leapcrash set-tai set-2038
>>
>> +TEST_PROGS = posix_timers nanosleep nsleep-lat set-timer-lat mqueue-lat \
>> +               inconsistency-check raw_skew
>> +TEST_FILES = threadtest alarmtimer-suspend valid-adjtimex change_skew \
>> +               skew_consistency clocksource-switch leap-a-day leapcrash \
>> +               set-tai set-2038
>> +
>> +RUN_TESTS_WITH_ARGS := ./threadtest -t 30 -n 8 || echo "selftests: threadtest [FAIL]"
>> +
>> +EMIT_TESTS_WITH_ARGS := echo "$(RUN_TESTS_WITH_ARGS)"
>> +
> 
> So my make-foo isn't very strong, but no objections from me.
> 
> My only thoughts:
> 1) Would it be better if threadtest can be made to have better
> defaults for kselftest so you don't need that extra logic?

Yes. If you can change the threadset to run with -t 30 -n 8
in default case, that would make the logic simpler. Can you
send me a patch to do this?


> 2) While I get that TEST_FILES is likely going to be used to copy the
> destructive tests over, It feels a little like its being bundled in
> with something like data files that tests might need, which seems sort
> of hackish. Would TEST_PROGS_EXTENDED or something be more clear and
> make more sense?

I agree with you on this. TEST_FILES usage is an overload.

-- Shuah


-- 
Shuah Khan
Sr. Linux Kernel Developer
Open Source Innovation Group
Samsung Research America (Silicon Valley)
shuahkh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx | (970) 217-8978
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/